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. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Adnan and another vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 176 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-18
  criminal appealconviction for major offencecharge-sheet illegalitynarcotics caseremand of caseCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Multan, whereby the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 9-(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but ultimately convicted and sentenced under Section 9-(c) of the same Act for a major offence. The core legal question revolves around the legality of convicting an accused for a major offence when the initial charge was framed only for a minor offence. The Lahore High Court held that an accused charged with a minor offence cannot legally be convicted of a major offence, rendering the trial court's judgment a patent and incurable illegality. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law within three months, establishing the principle that conviction must strictly correspond to the charge framed or a lesser proved offence, but never a higher one.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused charged with a minor offence be convicted for a major offence?
  • Whether conviction for an offence higher than the one charged in the charge-sheet is sustainable in law?
  • What is the appropriate legal recourse when a trial court convicts an accused of a major offence despite framing a charge for a minor offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan alias Sanny and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2016 CLC 513 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-13
  election appealnomination paperutility charges defaultdisqualification of candidatelocal government electionscriminal caseconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate order passed by the District and Sessions Judge/Appellate Authority, Sukkur, which had rejected the petitioners' candidature for the posts of Chairman and Vice Chairman of U.C. No. 25 Saeedabad, Sukkur, on the grounds of being a utility charges defaulter and facing a criminal case. The core legal questions involved the legality of raising objections for the first time in an election appeal without prior objection during scrutiny, the effect of clearing government dues prior to the impugned order, and whether mere registration of an FIR without conviction constitutes a disqualification for contesting local government elections. The Sindh High Court held that the appellate authority failed to examine the relevant facts and law, noting that the alleged default amount had already been paid with a 'no dues certificate' issued, and that mere registration of an FIR (without a conviction for moral turpitude or corrupt practices) does not disqualify a candidate. The court laid down the principle that post-scrutiny objections regarding cleared utility dues and unconvicted criminal accusations cannot form the basis for disqualifying a candidate in an election appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be disqualified from contesting local government elections merely on the basis of a pending criminal FIR without a conviction?
  • Whether an objection regarding utility charges default can be sustained when the dues have been paid and a no-dues certificate is issued prior to the appellate decision?
  • Is an election appeal maintainable when no objections were raised before the Returning Officer during the scrutiny of nomination papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Ali and others vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1362 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-01-08
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquirydelay in FIRmedical reportprohibitory clausestatement of victim
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter involves petitions for post-arrest bail arising from a common FIR registered under sections 354-A, 170, 506-11 and 376/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of abduction, impersonation, criminal intimidation, and gang rape. The core legal questions pertained to whether delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies in the medical report regarding the victim's hymen, and arguments of further inquiry warranted the grant of bail in a heinous offence. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that at the bail stage, evidence is to be assessed tentatively, and the consistent statement of the victim implicating the accused—coupled with the absence of prior animosity and the gravity of the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—sufficiently justified declining bail. The court laid down the principle that the statement of a victim in a brutal sexual assault case, when corroborated by her prompt approach to authorities and lack of apparent motive for false implication, is sufficient at the pre-trial stage to deny bail, leaving medical discrepancies to be resolved at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR in a sexual assault case provide sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sufficient to decline bail when coupled with a heinous offence?
  • Can discrepancies between a victim's claim and the medical report regarding a ruptured hymen be resolved at the bail stage through deeper appreciation of evidence?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail absent strong grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Abid vs Munaf Attara and others2016 PLD Sindh 392 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
• Administrator General Zakat, Central Zakat Administration, Islamabad2016 PLD Supreme Court 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-15
  ZakatSahib-e-Nisabstatutory corporationFederal Governmentexemptionjuristic person
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh exempting the respondent, Pakistan Insurance Corporation, from the charge and collection of Zakat under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. The appellant contended that because the respondent, a statutory corporation, was only 51% owned by the Federal Government, it did not qualify for the exemption under Section 2(xxiii)(b) of the Ordinance, which requires a statutory corporation to be wholly owned by the government. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the interplay between Section 1(2) and Section 2(xxiii) of the Ordinance. The Court held that for Zakat to be leviable on an artificial juristic person, the majority of its shares or beneficial ownership must be held by Muslim citizens of Pakistan. Since the majority equity (51%) of the respondent was owned by the Federal Government, which is expressly excluded from being a 'Sahib-e-Nisab' under Section 2(xxiii)(a), the respondent did not satisfy the statutory criteria for the levy of Zakat. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory corporation with majority equity owned by the Federal Government is liable to the charge and collection of Zakat under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980?
  • Does the definition of 'Sahib-e-Nisab' under Section 2(xxiii) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, read with Section 1(2), require majority ownership by Muslim citizens of Pakistan for a juristic person to be liable for Zakat?
  • Can a statutory corporation be subjected to Zakat if its majority shareholder is the Federal Government, which itself is excluded from the status of 'Sahib-e-Nisab'?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Mansoor vs The State etc.2016 LHC 9 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-14Read full judgment →
• Adil Mansoor vs The State and 2 others2016 LHC 9, 2017 MLD 1046 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-14Read full judgment →
• Adeel Haider vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Home2016 P Cr. L J 697 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-07
  preventive detentionAnti-Terrorism Actconstitutional petitionpublic safetyproscribed organizationintelligence reports
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the detention order passed by the District Coordination Officer, Bhakkar, under Section 11-EEEE(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the preventive detention order passed against the petitioner on the basis of intelligence reports and involvement in anti-peace activities was lawful and within jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the District Coordination Officer was fully competent under Section 11-EEEE(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to issue the detention order based on credible information and inquiry reports implicating the petitioner in terrorist activities and actions prejudicial to public peace and order. The court laid down the principle that preventive detention under Section 11-EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is justified when supported by credible intelligence reports and inquiry findings showing a person's involvement in activities harmful to public safety and maintenance of public order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the District Coordination Officer is competent to issue a detention order under Section 11-EEEE(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a preventive detention order sustainable when based on credible intelligence reports and inquiry findings regarding anti-peace activities?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a preventive detention order passed under Section 11-EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the absence of mala fides or irrelevant material?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Inspector-General of Police, Karachi and anothers vs Muhammad Ismail Lashari and another2016 SCMR 2098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-01
  police disciplinary proceedingspatchy service recordremoval from servicedouble jeopardycompetent authoritymisconductservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals by leave of the Court against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which set aside the dismissal from service of the respondents—police officials with extensive and patchy service records—and remanded their cases for de novo proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) was the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings and award dismissal under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, read with Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934, and whether utilizing past cumulative adverse entries to inflict dismissal violates the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the DIG, being the appointing and competent authority under the applicable rules and notifications, possessed full jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices and dismiss the delinquent officers based on their cumulative record of misconduct. The Court laid down that Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules 1934 is an independent disciplinary mechanism aimed at maintaining force discipline by assessing the cumulative effect of continued misconduct to determine incorrigibility, and does not offend Article 13 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police is a competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings and impose the penalty of dismissal upon police inspectors under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 read with the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Does taking into account past cumulative punishments and adverse entries under Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 to dismiss a police officer violate the protection against double jeopardy enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What is the distinct scope and objective of Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 regarding the assessment of continued misconduct and incorrigibility in the police force?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Director, Lahore. vs M/s. Flying Board & Paper Products, Lahore.PTCL 2016 CL. 701 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2015-04-27
  input tax adjustmentcapacity taxationshow cause noticejurisdiction of collectorsales tax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This departmental appeal challenges the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Lahore, which vacated a show-cause notice issued to a registered person regarding the alleged illegal adjustment of input tax against fixed sales tax under capacity taxation. The core legal questions involve the competency of the Collector to fix production capacity prior to statutory amendments, the legality of input tax adjustment as a statutory right, the validity of premises inspection without a judicial warrant, and the competency of the Additional Director to file an appeal on behalf of the department. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that the Collector lacked the power to fix production capacity during the relevant period, that input tax adjustment is an indefeasible statutory right, that inspection without a warrant from a Judicial Magistrate is illegal, and that the Additional Director is not competent to file the appeal. The tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal and upheld the vacation of the show-cause notice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Collector was competent to fix the production capacity of a manufacturing unit prior to the amendment in Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Is input tax adjustment a statutory right that can be defeated by an administrative order of the Collector?
  • Whether the visit and inspection of business premises by tax officials without a warrant from a Judicial Magistrate is legal?
  • Does an Additional Director have the legal competency to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal on behalf of the Sales Tax Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs vs Muhammad Hussain2016 PTD 2748 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-15
  customs referenceBaggage Rules 2006commercial quantityredemption fineshow cause noticeprocedural deficiencymens reaS.R.O. 499(I)/2009
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under the Customs Act 1969 was filed by the department against an order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had fully remitted the redemption fine and penalty imposed on commercial imports made by respondents under the Baggage Rules 2006. The Tribunal deleted the fine and penalty on the ground that the show-cause notice was defective and deficient. The High Court considered whether procedural deficiencies in a show-cause notice justify the complete remission of statutory redemption fine and penalty when the factual basis of commercial import under the Baggage Rules is undisputed. The High Court answered the reference question in the negative, holding that where legal requirements are complied with in substance and no prejudice is caused, minor deficiencies in a show-cause notice do not vitiate proceedings or extinguish statutory liability. The Court held respondents liable for redemption fine at 20% under S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 alongside duty and taxes, while confirming the waiver of penalty in the absence of mens rea.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural deficiency in a show-cause notice render the entire assessment proceedings void where no prejudice is caused to the taxpayer?
  • Whether commercial imports made under the Baggage Rules 2006 attract mandatory redemption fine under Section 181 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Can penalty be imposed under customs laws in the absence of mens rea?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Securities (Pvt.) Ltd vs Director/Head of Department (MSRD)Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Adam Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Director (SMD) Securities and ExchangeAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Acquisition of Business Relating to a Portfolio of Oncology2016 CLD 444 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2015-02-09
  competition assessmentmerger controldominant positionrelevant marketoncology portfolio acquisitionPhase II reviewantiemetics
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a pre-merger application filed under Section 11 of the Competition Act, 2010 by Novartis AG seeking clearance from the Competition Commission of Pakistan for the proposed acquisition of an oncology product portfolio (excluding manufacturing) from GlaxoSmithKline Plc. The core legal question concerned whether the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition by creating or strengthening a dominant position in the relevant product market. The Commission conducted a Phase II review focusing on the overlapping products related to Serotonin 5-HT3 antagonists. The Commission held that despite the combined market share exceeding the dominance threshold, the presence of numerous alternative market players, the low price difference among products, and the absence of any adverse effect on consumer choice ensured that competition would not be appreciably lessened. Consequently, the Commission unconditionally authorized the acquisition pursuant to Section 31(1)(d)(i) of the Competition Act, 2010, laying down the principle that a merger involving an overlapping product market may be cleared where sufficient alternative competitors exist and consumer choice remains preserved.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a dominant position under Section 2(e) of the Competition Act, 2010?
  • Under what statutory provision does the Competition Commission of Pakistan review and authorize pre-merger applications?
  • Does the acquisition of a competitor's portfolio resulting in high combined market shares automatically warrant the refusal of a merger clearance?
  Read full judgment →
• Accurate Builders and Constructors (Pvt.) ltd vs Executive DirectorAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abu Dhabi Flour and Animal Feed Factory through Attorney vs M.V.2016 PLD Sindh 367 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-07
  Admiralty jurisdictionAction in remBreach of contractCarrier liabilityBailmentVoyage frustrationPort duesBills of Lading
  Summary & questions settled

  This admiralty suit concerns a claim for damages arising from the non-delivery of cargo at the agreed port of Abu Dhabi. The plaintiff, a foreign entity, sought recovery for transshipment costs, cargo deterioration, and losses due to factory closure after the defendant vessel failed to deliver goods as per the Bills of Lading. The core legal questions addressed whether the court possessed admiralty jurisdiction, whether the carrier was in breach of contract, and whether the defendants could exercise a lien over the cargo. The court held that it possessed exclusive jurisdiction under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980. It determined that the defendants, as carriers and bailees, breached their contractual obligations and were liable for damages, including transshipment costs and cargo depreciation, despite claims of voyage frustration. However, claims for factory closure were rejected for lack of proof. The court established that carriers are bound by the duties of a bailee under the Contract Act, 1872, and that port authority dues hold priority over other claims in admiralty proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh High Court have exclusive jurisdiction to try admiralty claims under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
  • Can a carrier claim frustration of a voyage to absolve itself of contractual obligations when freight has been prepaid?
  • Are carriers considered bailees liable for losses under the Contract Act, 1872, when failing to deliver cargo at the agreed port?
  • Do port authority dues have priority over other claims in admiralty proceedings involving the sale of a vessel?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar Sheikh and another vs The State and another2016 P Cr. LJ 968 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16
  extortionanti-terrorismcriminal appealenhancement of sentencebenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, alongside a connected constitutional petition by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the presented evidence, delayed FIR reporting, and the reliability of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to implausible circumstances surrounding the alleged recovery of a chit and money, delayed reporting, and incredible witness testimonies. The court consequently set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the petition for enhancement as superfluous. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence runs counter to rational probabilities and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay of four days in reporting an incident to the police without a plausible explanation renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Does the recovery of an unsigned chit and common currency notes without independent corroboration constitute sufficient proof of extortion?
  • Can a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act be sustained when the testimonies of prosecution witnesses lack verisimilitude?
  • What is the effect of an accused's acquittal on a connected constitutional petition seeking enhancement of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abigail Noel Fisher vs University of Texas at Austin, Et Al2016 SCMR 1459 · Supreme Court of United StatesRead full judgment →
• Abid vs The State and others2016 P.S.C. 458, 2016 SCMR 907, 2016 P.S.C. Crl. 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-11
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfirearm injuriesbailable offencescriminal appealbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the High Court order that dismissed his post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(iii)(vi), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The petitioner was accused of firing at the complainant party with a .12 pistol, causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused with similar allegations of firearm injuries had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioner fell within bailable categories under the PPC. Finding that the petitioner's case was at par with the co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, granting the petitioner bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, thereby reinforcing the principle of consistency in bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail if a co-accused with similar allegations has already been granted bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where co-accused have received similar treatment?
  • Are injuries falling under Section 337-F(i) and 337-A(i) of the PPC considered bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Mehmood and otherss vs Noor Muhammad and otherss2016 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-18
  specific performanceagreement to selljoint-promiseesregistered documentcompromise applicationreadiness and willingnesscourt fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges the concurrent findings of the Lahore High Court and the appellate court, which decreed the respondents' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal questions involve whether a registered agreement to sell signed on the reverse by a vendee before a Sub-Registrar is maintainable, whether the compromise or relinquishment of rights by some joint-promisees frustrates the entire contract, and whether seeking time to pay court fees proves the vendees' impecuniosity. The Supreme Court held that the registered agreement was valid and maintainable despite the absence of signatures on the main text, that a joint-promisee can maintain a suit for specific performance even if other joint-promisees attempt to compromise or withdraw, and that seeking time to pay court fees is a procedural matter unrelated to financial capacity for fulfilling substantive contractual obligations. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the lower courts' decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Is a registered agreement to sell maintainable when the vendee's signature appears on the reverse side endorsing the Sub-Registrar's certificate rather than the main text?
  • Can one joint-promisee maintain a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell when other joint-promisees attempt to compromise and relinquish their rights?
  • Does a request for time to deposit court fees in the plaint establish the financial incapacity of the vendee to pay the balance sale consideration?
  • Does the non-disposal of a compromise application filed by disinterested co-vendees vitiate the enforcement of an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs Zaman Khan Abbasi and 4 others2016 PLD Islamabad 19 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-31
  specific performancelis pendensbona fide purchaserburden of proofcivil revisionrevisional jurisdictiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with the original owner, subsequently filing a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of this suit, the property was transferred to a third party, who was later impleaded as a defendant and claimed the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court concurrently held that the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser, thereby exempting the transaction from the doctrine of lis pendens. The High Court affirmed these findings, holding that while the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 generally prohibits transfers during pending litigation, it is subject to the exception of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving bona fide status lies initially on the purchaser, which, once discharged, shifts the onus to the plaintiff to prove otherwise. Finding no jurisdictional error, the Court dismissed the revision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding concurrent findings of fact?
  • Does the definition of 'good faith' under the General Clauses Act 1897 require a purchaser to conduct an exhaustive search of the registry to verify title?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs Gul Zaman Khan Abbasi and 4 others2016 PLJ Islamabad 12 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abid HUSSAINand others vs The State2016 YLR 1042 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-03
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencemotiveweapon recoverycredibility of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the corroboration between medical and ocular evidence, the existence of a reliable motive, and the veracity of weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene, noting significant contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, as well as an admitted previous compromise between the parties regarding the alleged motive. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, laying down the principle that unverified eyewitness accounts contradicted by medical evidence and weak motive cannot sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ocular account that contradicts the medical evidence can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does a previously compromised and patched-up enmity serve as a reliable motive for a subsequent crime without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction stand when the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene of the occurrence is rendered doubtful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the foundational prosecution case against the accused has been disproved?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The State and others2016 MLD 715 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-11
  Qatl-i-Amdsudden quarrellack of premeditationsentence reductioncriminal appealocular evidencemedical evidenceconviction conversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Abid Hussain, who was initially convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Irfan and under Section 337-F(i) for causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the incident, which arose from a sudden quarrel over kite-catching without prior premeditation, warranted a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd under Section 302(b) or if it fell under the mitigating circumstances of Section 302(c). The Court held that the prosecution proved the occurrence through consistent ocular and medical evidence, but found that the lack of premeditation, the sudden nature of the fight, and the absence of undue advantage or brutal conduct brought the case within the purview of Section 302(c). Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The principle established is that where a homicide occurs during a sudden quarrel without premeditation or undue advantage, it constitutes an offence under Section 302(c) rather than Section 302(b).

  Questions settled

  • Does a homicide committed during a sudden quarrel without premeditation fall under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd be converted to an offence under Section 302(c) if the accused took no undue advantage and acted without brutality?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence reduced upon appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Bashir (Co-Owner) Messrs Sheikh Brothers Chemicals vs Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2016 PTD 2619 · Federal Tax Ombudsman
  maladministrationtax raidsearch and seizureSales Tax ActFederal Tax Ombudsmandignity of manbusiness premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a complaint filed under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, alleging an unauthorized raid and illegal seizure of records by tax authorities at the complainant's business premises. The core legal question was whether the department's actions constituted maladministration by violating the procedural requirements for search and seizure under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Federal Tax Ombudsman held that no maladministration was established, as the evidence suggested the business was operational and the department acted under valid authorization. However, the judgment clarified the scope of Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, establishing that departmental visits are confined to inspecting records in plain sight or those voluntarily produced. The Ombudsman affirmed that officers lack the power under Section 38 to compel the production of records not in plain sight. Any evidence obtained through such compulsion is inadmissible, and actions violating these procedural limits are deemed illegal, void, and a failure to act fairly, justly, and reasonably.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 authorize tax officials to compel the production of records not in plain sight?
  • Are tax officials required to obtain a search warrant under Section 40 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for inspecting declared business premises?
  • Can evidence obtained through the compelled production of records during a tax raid be used against a taxpayer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Associated Agencies International Ltd. etc. vs Areva etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• Abid Ashraf vs The State and another2016 YLR 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-25
  narcotics traffickingrecovery of charaschemical analysisburden of proofsafe custody of samplescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for narcotics trafficking. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of charas, the validity of sending only a sample quantity for chemical analysis, and the effect of delay in dispatching samples to the chemical examiner. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the recoveries through consistent and unimpeached eyewitness testimony of police officials, that sending a representative sample is legally sufficient under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that procedural rules regarding sample dispatch are directory rather than mandatory. The court laid down the principle that once the prosecution discharges its initial burden of proof regarding the recovery of contraband, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and minor procedural delays or sending only representative samples do not vitiate a conviction based on otherwise reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally necessary to send the entire bulk of recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner or is a representative sample sufficient?
  • Does a delay in sending sample parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner vitiate the prosecution case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in narcotics cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Are the rules regulating the sending of parcels to the Chemical Examiner under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts Rules, 2001) mandatory or directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid and others vs State and othersPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 182 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-16
  murderasphyxiadelay in FIRinquest reporthearsay evidencebenefit of doubtpost-mortem delaychance witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, which convicted appellant Abid under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, while convicting the other three appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellants strangled the deceased and hanged his body from a tree. The High Court, on appeal, evaluated the evidence and identified several critical infirmities: an unexplained delay of one and a half hours in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) despite the close proximity of the police station; the absence of the FIR number on the inquest report; material contradictions in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses regarding their physical positioning; and a significant delay in conducting the post-mortem examination. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and the deceased had a history of criminal involvement. Applying the established rule of prudence, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained when the inquest report prepared at the spot lacks the FIR number and is unsigned by eye-witnesses?
  • How does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination, coupled with medical evidence indicating an earlier time of death, affect the prosecution's timeline?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Abib alias Ghaffar Abba vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 683 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-19
  post-arrest bailunlicensed weaponSindh Arms Actrecovery witnessesfurther inquirystatutory sentencepolice officials
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the alleged possession of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery, the lack of independent witnesses, and the status of the investigation. The Sindh High Court granted bail, noting that the investigation was complete, the accused was not required for further investigation, and the recovery witnesses were exclusively police officials. The court reaffirmed the principle that when considering bail, the court should not focus solely on the maximum sentence provided by the statute, but rather on the sentence likely to be entailed by the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, the court held that where the prosecution relies solely on official witnesses for a recovery, and the accused has already been granted bail in the main case, a case for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a recovery case entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Should a court considering a bail application focus on the maximum statutory sentence or the likely sentence based on the facts of the case?
  • Does the completion of investigation and the lack of risk of tampering with evidence constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 251 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-12
  post-arrest bailextortionAnti-Terrorism ActSection 387 PPCthreatening callsresiling complainantSection 164 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 70/2015 registered under Section 387 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, concerning extortion and threatening calls made to the complainant. The petitioner contended that he did not own the mobile SIMs used, was implicated solely through a co-accused's statement, and that the complainant no longer charged him before the court. The Peshawar High Court rejected the bail petition, holding that a tentative assessment of the material on record—including recoveries made from the co-accused, a witness statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confirming the petitioner took the SIM card used, and the complainant's original Section 164 statement—prima facie linked the petitioner to the crime. The Court further observed that complainants in extortion cases often resile out of fear of grave threats, and such compromise or refusal to charge at the bail stage does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in offences affecting society at large.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complainant's statement refusing to charge the accused at the bail stage automatically entitle the accused to bail in extortion cases?
  • Can material evidence and third-party witness statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. establish a prima facie case to withhold bail despite a complainant's compromised stance?
  • What impact does a complainant's U-turn caused by fear or threats have on the maintainability of a bail petition in offences against society at large?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Sabir Hussain and 6 others2016 P Cr. LJ 888 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-13
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalmurdersuppression of genesisinjuries on accusedcontradictory evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 by the trial court under section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case involving offences under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's acquittal judgment suffered from perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused party, and presented contradictory ocular and medical evidence through interested witnesses. Affirming the trial court's judgment, the High Court laid down that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or based on misreading of evidence, and that where the prosecution suppresses the true origin of a fight, the case becomes highly doubtful.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's view is a possible view based on the evidence?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the prosecution suppresses the genesis and origin of the occurrence and conceals injuries sustained by the accused?
  • Does delay in lodging the First Information Report without reasonable explanation cast doubt on the prosecution version?
  • Can the testimony of related and interested witnesses be relied upon when it contradicts the medical and documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The State and another2016 LHC 2416 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-05
  pre-arrest bailabductionprohibitory clausemala fidedelayed FIRfree consent marriageSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed a significant, unexplained delay of over two months in the registration of the FIR, suggesting potential deliberation and mala fide intent. Furthermore, the alleged abductee consistently maintained that she married the petitioner of her own free will, a fact supported by a Nikah Nama and her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the petitioner’s false implication due to familial grudge could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR indicate potential mala fide intent in a criminal case?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a bail application concerning alleged abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim through L. Rs,s vs Mohammad Shafa and another2016 YLR 2568 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-27
  burden of proofmisreading of evidencecivil suit for possessionpartition of propertyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges the appellate court's order dismissing the petitioners' appeal and upholding the trial court's judgment which had dismissed their civil suit for possession. The core legal question involves the proper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, the burden of proof regarding a claimed partition of the suit property, and the alleged misreading of evidence by the courts below. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, baselessly rejected the plaintiffs' documentary evidence (Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/3), and that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him by his own pleadings. The petition was allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed throughout.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts can be set aside on the ground of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • Where a defendant claims ownership of property through a partition in pleadings, does the burden of proof shift to the defendant to prove such partition?
  • Can documentary evidence be rejected by the courts without a plausible reason?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rab Patwari vs The State and others2016 YLR 1173 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-12
  criminal breach of trustforgerymisappropriation of fundspublic officialmutation recordsanti-corruptioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a public official, for misappropriating mutation fees and forging official records. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charges of criminal breach of trust and misuse of official authority beyond reasonable doubt. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution proved the appellant received mutation fees without depositing them into the government treasury and entered unauthorized mutations, causing financial loss to the state. The appellant’s own admissions regarding the unauthorized entries further corroborated the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the trial court. The judgment establishes the principle that public functionaries, as custodians of public records, bear a heightened responsibility; engaging in forgery and fabrication of official documents to deprive citizens of property rights constitutes a heinous offense that creates anarchy and undermines the rule of law. The Court affirmed that such conduct warrants strict judicial scrutiny and accountability.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public official's admission of entering unauthorized mutations constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for misuse of official authority?
  • Can a conviction for criminal breach of trust be sustained where the accused failed to deposit collected public fees into the government treasury?
  • Does the fabrication of official mutation records by a public custodian constitute a heinous offense justifying strict penal consequences?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan and another vs Hussain and others2016 PLJ Peshawar 35, 2016 CLC 928 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan and another vs Bibi Almas Bano and 8 others2016 CLC 1465 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-02-22
  Pre-emptionSubstituted serviceEx-parte decreeTalb-i-MawasibatTalb-i-IshhadLimitation ActCondonation of delayCivil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for possession through the right of pre-emption, which was decreed ex-parte by the trial court. The appellants challenged the decree, arguing they were never properly served and that the plaintiffs failed to establish the essential requirements of pre-emption. The core legal questions concerned the validity of substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the performance of pre-emption demands under Mohammadan Law. The High Court held that the trial court erred in ordering substituted service without exhausting ordinary means of service or ensuring the plaintiffs provided correct addresses. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential requirements of Talb-i-Mawasibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, specifically failing to establish the timing of the first demand and the necessary reference to it during the second demand. Consequently, the court set aside the ex-parte decree and dismissed the suit. The judgment establishes that substituted service is a measure of last resort, and a plaintiff must strictly prove the performance of pre-emption demands, including the specific sequence and timing of legal requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a court order substituted service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff required to prove the specific timing of the first demand (Talb-i-Mawasibat) in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the failure to reference the first demand (Talb-i-Mawasibat) during the second demand (Talb-i-Ishhad) invalidate a claim for pre-emption?
  • Can an ex-parte decree be sustained if the plaintiff fails to prove the essential requirements of their claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 3 others vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 271 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-18
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictionsiyah karitransfer of casesense of insecurityheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed against the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, which dismissed the accused's application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking the transfer of the case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the brutal murder of two girls on the pretext of 'Siyah Kari' and burying them in a ditch without proper funeral rites constituted an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Sindh High Court held that the gruesome nature of the crime, its widespread media coverage, and the resulting panic and sense of insecurity created among the public and villagers brought the offense within the ambit of terrorism. The court dismissed the application, affirming that the act created a sense of insecurity and destabilized public peace, thus properly attracting the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the murder of girls on the pretext of Siyah Kari falls within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try a case where the brutal act creates panic and a sense of insecurity in the society?
  • Can an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of a case to an ordinary court be dismissed when the offense has a nexus with terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Advertiser through Muhammad Ramzan, Sole Proprietor, Janoobi2016 LHC 995 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul, Waheed Usman through legally constituted attorney vs Gul2016 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-29
  rejection of plaintOrder II Rule 2 C.P.C.limitationcause of actionencroachmentcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant impugned an order of a learned Single Judge rejecting their plaint in a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of limitation, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The core legal questions involved whether the subsequent suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 and whether it was time-barred. The Sindh High Court held that the cause of action for the subsequent suit arose only when construction commenced on the disputed plot and the appellant gained knowledge that their plot's area was encroached upon, rendering neither Order II Rule 2 nor the bar of limitation applicable at the rejection stage. The court set aside the impugned order, restored the interim order, and directed the trial court to frame issues regarding these objections for a decision on evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the cause of action for the said suit arises from subsequent construction and alleged encroachment of land?
  • Does limitation for filing a suit challenging the carving out of a new plot start from the date of a historical site plan or from the date of knowledge of construction on the disputed property?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of limitation and Order II Rule 2 when factual controversy regarding the accrual of the cause of action exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zahir vs Khuda-E-Dad and others2016 YLR 188 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-10-06
  mutation entryrevenue recordpresumption of truthadverse inferencelimitationco-sharerfraud and misrepresentationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns a dispute over land ownership and the validity of a mutation entry. The petitioner sought declaration and possession based on a 1987 mutation, while the respondents sought cancellation of said mutation, alleging fraud and forgery. The trial court decreed in favor of the petitioner, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court, upon review, held that the appellate court erred by failing to consider the presumption of truth attached to revenue records under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, and by ignoring the respondents' failure to rebut this presumption with cogent evidence. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondents withheld the best evidence, warranting an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The court also found the respondents' suit time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, as they were aware of the mutation upon the inheritance mutation of their father. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, restoring the trial court's decree, affirming that long-standing revenue entries create vested rights that require strong evidence to rebut.

  Questions settled

  • Does a long-standing mutation entry in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth that requires strong evidence to rebut?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against a party under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for withholding the best evidence?
  • Is a suit for the cancellation of a mutation entry time-barred if the plaintiff was aware of the entry upon the inheritance mutation of their predecessor?
  • Does the appellate court have the discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal without sufficient cause or bonafide explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zahir Khan Achakzai vs District and Sessions Judge, Quetta_Returning Officer through Chairman and 2 others2016 PLD Balochistan 32 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid vs Messrs Regent Plaza Hotel and Convention Center2016 PLC 218 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2015-10-22
  labour lawmisconductreinstatementdismissal from serviceburden of proofdisciplinary enquiryhospitality industry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a labour dispute where the appellant, a former barman, challenged the dismissal of his application for reinstatement by the Sindh Labour Court. The appellant was dismissed from service following an enquiry that found him guilty of misconduct, specifically serving unhygienic beverages and having a history of repeated warnings for negligence, including an incident involving contamination of food served to a large party. The core legal question was whether the employer's decision to dismiss the employee was justified given the evidence of misconduct and the appellant's history of warnings, despite the employer not producing the affected guests as witnesses. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the dismissal was lawful, noting that the employer had sufficiently established the charges through internal witnesses and that the appellant's persistent misconduct and negligence undermined the hotel's business interests. The Tribunal affirmed that an employer is not required to produce guests as witnesses in such disciplinary proceedings, as the nature of the service industry makes such expectations impractical. The judgment reinforces the principle that persistent indifferent conduct and negligence by an employee, especially in the hospitality sector, justifies termination of service.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employer required to produce customers as witnesses to prove misconduct in a domestic enquiry regarding poor service?
  • Does a history of repeated warnings for misconduct justify the dismissal of an employee?
  • Can a Labour Court close the right to cross-examine witnesses if the appellant fails to exercise that right for several years?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Pathan vs Habib Bank Limited through Attorney and Manager and 3 others2016 CLD 210 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-18
  Section 12(2) C.P.C.Banking CourtLimitation ActMortgage of leasehold rightsExecution of decreeFraud and misrepresentationCivil Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This 1st Civil Appeal challenged a Banking Court order dismissing an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant, claiming ownership of property mortgaged by the judgment debtor to the respondent bank, alleged that the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal questions concerned the limitation period for challenging a decree under Section 12(2) and the validity of mortgaging leasehold rights. The Court held that the application was time-barred, as it was filed sixteen years after the decree without any explanation for the delay, citing the three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, the Court determined that the mortgage of leasehold rights was valid, noting that restrictions in a lease agreement regarding transfer do not invalidate a mortgage transaction. The Court concluded that no fraud was established, the appellant was likely a set-up party, and the impugned order was legally sound. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a restriction in a lease agreement prohibiting transfer without the lessor's consent invalidate a mortgage of the leasehold rights?
  • Can a third party challenge a decree through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after sixteen years without explaining the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and another vs The State and others2016 PLD Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-12
  criminal appealforum of appealMagistrate Section 30jurisdictionCourt of Sessionmaintainabilitycode of criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Magistrate Section 30, Okara, convicting the appellants under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to seven years rigorous imprisonment. A preliminary office objection was raised regarding the direct filing of the appeal before the High Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a conviction and sentence passed by a Section 30 Magistrate in the Punjab province lies directly to the High Court or to the Court of Session following the statutory amendments to Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that due to the omission of the words relating to Section 30 Magistrates from clause (b) of Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, appeals against any sentence passed by a Magistrate, including a Section 30 Magistrate, lie exclusively to the Court of Session, rendering a direct appeal to the High Court non-maintainable. The High Court accordingly directed the office to transmit the case file to the Sessions Judge, Okara, for adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate Section 30 in Punjab lie to the High Court or the Court of Session?
  • What is the effect of the amendment to Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding sentences passed by Special Magistrates or Section 30 Magistrates?
  • Is an appeal filed directly before the High Court against the judgment of a Magistrate Section 30 maintainable under the amended law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 686 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-13
  Qatl-i-amdcriminal appealbenefit of doubtcross-versionocular evidencedelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Qatl-i-amd under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of a cross-version of the incident, a significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and material discrepancies in the ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, including the unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the abandonment of the primary eyewitness named in the FIR, and the failure to prove the recovery of the weapon of offence. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant’s cross-version, supported by medical evidence of his own injuries, cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the cardinal principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, and the benefit of any doubt must invariably be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, combined with the abandonment of the primary eyewitness, create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution's ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical report and the existence of a cross-version?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Adil Nafees, Etc.2016 NLR Civil 414 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Satter vs The State2016 P.S.C. Crl. 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-19
  narcotics possessionchemical analysissentencing reductionrecovered substancesample weightcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 42 kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerns the determination of the quantity of narcotics for sentencing purposes when only a single sample from the recovered substance was sent for chemical analysis. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), held that where multiple packets are recovered but only one consolidated sample is chemically analyzed, the prosecution cannot establish the nature of the entire bulk. Consequently, the court ruled that only the weight of the single packet from which the sample was drawn—two kilograms—could be considered for the purposes of conviction and sentencing. The appeal was partly allowed; the conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine, and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was granted.

  Questions settled

  • When multiple packets of narcotics are recovered but only one sample is sent for chemical analysis, can the entire bulk be considered for sentencing?
  • Is the conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable when only a portion of the recovered substance is chemically verified?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State2016 P.S.C. 506, 2016 PSC CRI 506, 2016 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-19
  narcoticscharas possessionchemical analysissentencing reductioncriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of the appellant for possessing a large quantity of charas. The core legal question concerned the determination of the correct weight of the narcotics to be considered for sentencing when multiple packets are recovered and only a single consolidated sample is sent for chemical analysis. The Court held, following the precedent in Ameer Zeb v. The State, that only the weight of the single packet from which the sample was drawn can be considered for the appellant's conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed; the conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained, but the sentence was reduced accordingly, with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 extended to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What weight of recovered narcotics can be considered for conviction and sentencing when multiple packets are seized and only a single consolidated sample is sent for chemical analysis?
  • Whether the conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be maintained while reducing the sentence based on the weight of the analyzed sample?
  • Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a criminal appeal regarding narcotics possession is partly allowed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs State2016 PHC 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, and 2 others2016 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Baloch vs The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2016 KLR Labour & Service Cases 191 · Islamabad High Court
  service appealjurisdiction of service tribunalcivil servantremoval from serviceabatement of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his dismissal from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Initially, the appeal was abated on the ground that the employee of the House Building Finance Corporation was not a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act 1973 and lacked statutory rules. Subsequently, upon an application for restoration, the appeal was restored based on the contention that the rules were statutory. However, relying on a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court, the respondents argued that corporation employees are not civil servants and cannot approach the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the service appeal since the appellant did not fall within the definition of a civil servant. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, leaving the appellant to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the House Building Finance Corporation qualifies as a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by employees of corporate bodies lacking statutory civil servant status?
  • What is the effect of a Supreme Court ruling regarding lack of tribunal jurisdiction on a pending service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and another vs The StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 25, 2016 P Cr. L J 396 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-07
  pre-arrest bailcorruptionmisappropriationmala fideextraordinary reliefcriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail by two individuals accused of corruption, fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of government funds under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question is whether the applicants, who were accused of illegally withdrawing government funds after retirement, established sufficient grounds of mala fide or departmental intrigue to warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent on the part of the investigating agency. Furthermore, the applicants did not deny the encashment of government funds, which prima facie linked them to the alleged offence. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that mere allegations of 'mala fide' or 'departmental intrigue' are insufficient for pre-arrest bail; an accused must satisfy the strict conditions established by the Supreme Court, including proving that the arrest is sought for ulterior motives and that there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can mere allegations of mala fide or departmental intrigue justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute or alternative for post-arrest bail?
  • What are the essential conditions an accused must satisfy to be granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the fact that a case relies on documentary evidence in the possession of the prosecution automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and another vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 25 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-07
  pre-arrest bailcorruptionmisappropriationmala fideextraordinary reliefdepartmental intrigue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges of corruption, fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of government funds under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The applicants, accused of misappropriating funds from the Taluka Municipal Administration after the retirement of one of the accused, contended that their implication was the result of departmental intrigue and mala fide intentions. The core legal question was whether the applicants met the stringent criteria for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, specifically regarding the proof of mala fides and the existence of reasonable grounds for further inquiry. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish mala fides or departmental intrigue, noting that they did not deny the encashment of government funds during the period in question. Emphasizing that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail, the Court dismissed the application, ruling that the applicants were prima facie linked to the alleged offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted solely on the assertion of mala fide intentions without supporting evidence?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in corruption cases?
  • What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to obtain pre-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar alias Sattari and 3 otherss vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 1535 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-01
  murder trialreasonable doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnessescriminal appealacquittalprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court in a murder case initiated via a private complaint under Sections 302, 170, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular account was challenged by medical evidence and the credibility of the witnesses was in question. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness testimonies, noting that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been caused in the manner described by the witnesses. Additionally, the Court observed that the witnesses were interested and inimical, and their presence at the scene was doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence contradicting the ocular account of an occurrence render the testimony of eyewitnesses unreliable?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right for an accused when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses be accepted without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the timing of an FIR and the presence of witnesses at the crime scene justify acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State and othersPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 313, 2016 P Cr. L J 101 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-06
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtdark night occurrencecontradictions in evidenceacquittalsupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, handed down by the trial court. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an ocular account in a purported dark night unseen occurrence, material contradictions in witness testimonies, delayed reporting of the crime, and the extension of the benefit of doubt where co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that where the prosecution's narrative suffers from serious discrepancies regarding the source of light, weapon use, and medical evidence, and where the FIR was delayed and implicated the accused through a subsequent supplementary statement after due deliberation, the whole case becomes doubtful. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and an appellant cannot be singled out for conviction when co-accused facing the same evidence stand acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted on the basis of a dark night ocular account when material contradictions exist between the FIR and subsequent statements regarding the source of light and weapon usage?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when co-accused facing the identical prosecution evidence have already been acquitted by the trial court?
  • What is the legal effect of a delay in lodging the FIR when the time gap appears to have been utilized for deliberation and consultation?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent judge entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 313 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Mst. Haleema Khatoon through L.Rs2016 YLR 2158 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Boota vs The State and another2016 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-18
  post-arrest bailsuccessive bail petitioninvestigation reportinnocence pleaItlaf-e-Salahiyyat-i-udwcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Rehman alias Boota, in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 336, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a subsequent investigation report declaring him innocent and placing him in column No. 2 of the challan, despite having previously withdrawn a bail petition after arguing it at length. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a fresh ground for bail. The Court observed that the supplementary challan was based on material already available when the previous petition was withdrawn. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the opinions of investigating officers do not override the statements of eye-witnesses and injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a bail petition cannot be entertained on grounds that were available but not agitated during the withdrawal of a previous bail application, particularly when prima facie evidence of active participation exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner file a fresh bail application based on grounds that were already available at the time of withdrawing a previous bail petition?
  • Does an investigating officer's opinion of innocence automatically entitle an accused to bail when eye-witnesses have implicated the accused?
  • Is a trial court required to grant bail if the accused is placed in column No. 2 of the challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 266 · Sindh High Court · 2013-08-05
  post-arrest bailunlicensed pistolprohibitory clausefurther inquirySindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 165/2013 registered under Section 23(1) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 at Police Station Tando Allahyar, following the alleged recovery of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol. The core legal question involved the correct applicability of the penal provisions of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 regarding the recovery of a pistol and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the determination of the exact quantum of punishment and whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clause requires further probe, making the case one of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment, all recovery witnesses were police officials, and the accused was no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of an unlicensed pistol falls under Section 23 or Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Does a case warrant further inquiry when the quantum of punishment and applicability of the prohibitory clause are to be determined by the trial court?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq. vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Karachi and 2 othersPTCL 2016 CL. 837 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State2016 MLD 2064 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  circumstantial evidencedeath penaltylife imprisonmentextra-judicial confessionmitigating circumstancessudden provocationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the appellant's wife. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, recovery of the body from the appellant's house, and the appellant's unexplained abscondance. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. However, the Court modified the conviction to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, noting the possibility of sudden provocation. Emphasizing that judicial caution must be exercised in sentencing, the Court ruled that where mitigating circumstances exist or doubt arises regarding the necessity of the death penalty, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is the death penalty the mandatory or normal penalty for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the existence of mitigating circumstances or sudden provocation justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs State and 4 others2016 PLJ Lahore 701 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs State and 2 others2016 PLJ Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Lahore Development Authority, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 809 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Karachi and 2 othersPTCL 2016 CL. 837, 2016 PTD 1861 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-26
  customs referencesmugglingburden of proofbanned goodsillegal importconfiscation of goodscustoms act
  Summary & questions settled

  This Customs Reference Application was filed under Section 196 of the Customs Act 1969 against the order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the confiscation of seized non-duty paid foreign-origin ladies art silk cloth of Indian origin found in a private godown in Karachi. The core legal question centered on whether the goods were smuggled and upon which party the burden of proof lay. The Sindh High Court held that since the goods were of Indian origin and their import was banned under the Import Policy Order, and given that the applicant failed to produce any legal import documents or purchase receipts, the applicant failed to discharge the initial evidentiary burden of proof placed upon him under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969. The Court ruled that the special provisions of the Customs Act override general rules of evidence and that the Tribunal was fully justified in concluding the goods were smuggled. The reference application was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the initial evidentiary burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969 lies on the person found in possession of goods alleged to be smuggled?
  • Can findings of fact recorded concurrently by subordinate adjudicatory forums regarding the origin and status of seized goods be interfered with in a customs reference application?
  • Whether goods of Indian origin whose import is banned under the Import Policy Order can be presumed to be lawfully acquired without supporting import documents or receipts?
  • Whether the provisions of the Customs Act 1969 prevail over general rules of evidence contained in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in matters of evidentiary burden?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Addl: District Judge and others-2016 YLR 2694 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak Khamosh vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2016 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf, Acting Asstt. Director (Food) vs Government of Punjab2016 PLJ Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Government of the PUNJABthrough Secretary (Food), Civil2016 PLJ Lahore 58, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 1099 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-27
  writ petitionpromotiondepartmental promotion committeepending inquiryfitness for promotionservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the deferment of the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Food) BPS-17 by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner, an Assistant Accounts Officer, was deferred solely due to a pending inquiry regarding alleged criminal negligence. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order deferring promotion based on a pending inquiry, or if such a matter falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Court held that when a civil servant is deferred for promotion due to a pending inquiry, the issue pertains to fitness for promotion. Since appeals regarding fitness are not competent before the Punjab Service Tribunal, the writ petition is maintainable. The Court established that the mere pendency of an inquiry does not constitute a valid legal ground to bar or defer promotion. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Departmental Promotion Committee to reconsider the petitioner's case fairly and in accordance with the law within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order deferring a civil servant's promotion due to a pending inquiry?
  • Does the deferment of a civil servant's promotion on account of a pending inquiry constitute a matter of fitness?
  • Is an appeal against an order of deferment of promotion based on fitness competent before the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Amir vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad2016 PTD (Trib.) 2083 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Syed Fazal Ali Shah2016 SCMR 2163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-08
  suit for recoverysummary suitchequehandwriting expertburden of proofleave to appealcontradictory pleas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular First Appeal, which had upheld a trial court decree in a suit for recovery based on a cheque under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner raised contradictory defenses, initially claiming the cheque was provided as security for a loan and subsequently denying the authenticity of the signature on the cheque. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated to independently seek expert opinion regarding the disputed signature despite the petitioner's failure to request such an examination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court is not required to 'fish for evidence' or fill lacunae in a party's case where the party itself has been delinquent in proving its own defense. The Court affirmed that there is no mandatory duty upon the court to appoint a handwriting expert absent an application from the party concerned, especially when the petitioner failed to produce evidence to substantiate their claim of forgery.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court legally obligated to appoint a handwriting expert to verify a signature if the party challenging the signature fails to apply for such an appointment?
  • Can a court be required to 'fish for evidence' or fill lacunae in a party's case to assist a delinquent litigant?
  • Does the mere testimony of bank officers regarding a signature constitute expert evidence sufficient to disprove a signature in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Mst. Shamim Zakir and 6 others2016 MLD 1006 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Ali Bux through L.Rs, and others2016 CLC 1824 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-07
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11Specific Relief Actlegal charactercause of actioncivil appealdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Naushehro Feroz, which upheld the rejection of the appellant's plaint regarding a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over an Eidgah. The core legal question was whether the appellant's suit was maintainable and whether the trial court correctly exercised its power under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reject the plaint. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the lower courts correctly rejected the plaint. The court held that the appellant failed to establish any legal character or right to the property, rendering the suit incompetent. The court emphasized that incompetent suits must be buried at their inception to prevent the wastage of judicial time and resources. It reiterated that under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, a suit for declaration is only maintainable if the plaintiff asserts a valid legal character or right to property. Furthermore, a plaint must be rejected if it fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff fails to establish a legal character or right to the property?
  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 where the plaintiff lacks a specific legal right or character?
  • Should courts reject incompetent suits at the inception to prevent the wastage of judicial time and resources?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Abdul Wahid2016 MLD 190 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Khan through L.Rs, and otherss vs Safdar Ali through L.Rs, and others2016 YLR 2575 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed and another vs Election Appellate Authority and others2016 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-03
  nomination paperselection petitionwrit jurisdictionlocal government electionsconcealment of assetsAppellate Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the rejection of their nomination papers by the Returning Officer for alleged concealment of assets, which decision had been set aside by the Appellate Authority under the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, but subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the Appellate Authority allowing a candidate to contest local government elections. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that where an authority under the Local Government Act allows a candidate to contest an election, such an order cannot be challenged through writ jurisdiction in the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that such challenges must instead be raised in post-election proceedings through an Election Petition under section 39 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, thereby restoring the order of the Appellate Authority while keeping open the respondents' right to agitate the controversy post-election.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of an authority under the Local Government Act allowing a candidate to contest an election be challenged in writ jurisdiction in the High Court?
  • What is the appropriate remedy to challenge a candidate's qualification or acceptance of nomination papers after the election authorities have allowed them to contest?
  • Do the barring clauses in the disqualifying provisions of section 27(2) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 apply to alleged concealment of assets curable under the rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem and others vs Ehsan and others2016 PLJ AJ&K 99 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• (1) Abdul Raheem and another (2) Muhammad Ehsan and 12 others vs (1)2016 SC AJK 261 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Abdul Raheem and another (2) Muhammad Ehsan and 12 others vs (1)2016 SC AJK · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem alias Walhari vs The State2016 YLR 2147 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-11
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealshort sentenceSindh Arms Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the appellant, Abdul Raheem alias Walhari, seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the outcome of his main appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan. The appellant had been convicted under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail on the ground of a short sentence and delay in the hearing of the appeal. The Sindh High Court allowed the application, holding that a two-year sentence falls within the category of a short sentence and that the appellant had already served a significant period in custody while the likelihood of an early hearing of the appeal was remote due to a heavy judicial backlog. The key principle laid down is that the award of a short sentence coupled with the unlikelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future constitutes a sufficient ground for suspending the sentence and releasing the convict on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a short sentence of imprisonment is a valid ground for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal?
  • Can the High Court suspend a sentence and grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a heavy backlog of pending cases delaying the final hearing?
  • What criteria govern the grant of bail when a convict is undergoing a short sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs D.P.O., etc.2016 KLR Criminal Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs D.P.O. etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 301 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs D. P.O. and others2016 P Cr. L J 618 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-09
  transfer of investigationDistrict Standing BoardPolice Order 2002writ petitionentrustment of investigationDistrict Police Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court to challenge an order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the District Police Officer, Okara, whereby the investigation of a criminal case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code was transferred a second time. The core legal question was whether a District Police Officer has the authority to transfer or entrust an investigation to a new team of officers after an initial change of investigation has already been carried out through the District Standing Board, and whether 'entrustment' of investigation differs from 'transfer' under the law. The Court held that the words 'entrustment' and 'transfer' mean the same thing, and that under Article 18-A of the Police Order 2002, a District Police Officer has no authority to transfer an investigation at his whim once the District Standing Board has decided the matter. The key principle laid down is that the statutory mechanism for the transfer of investigations through respective standing boards must be strictly followed to ensure impartial and transparent investigations, and senior police officers cannot bypass these provisions under the guise of mere 'entrustment'.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entrustment of an investigation to a new team of police officers amounts to a transfer of investigation under Article 18-A of the Police Order 2002?
  • Does a District Police Officer have the legal authority to order a subsequent change of investigation after the District Standing Board has already decided upon the first change?
  • What is the prescribed statutory procedure for seeking successive changes of a criminal investigation under the Police Order 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Baig vs The Governor, State Bank of Pakistan and others2016 P.S.C. 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-05
  service tribunal jurisdictionstatutory rulesleave to appealterms and conditions of serviceState Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12.5.2011, which non-suited the petitioner solely on the ground of jurisdiction by holding that the State Bank of Pakistan lacks statutory rules and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance. The core legal question was whether the State Bank of Pakistan possesses statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service of its employees. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised regarding the existence of statutory rules requires consideration, particularly in light of precedents such as Muhammad Tariq Badr v. National Bank of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 314). Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the jurisdictional issue and the factual position of the service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over employees of the State Bank of Pakistan?
  • Does the State Bank of Pakistan have statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service of its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Arif and 54 others vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 8 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 966 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-26
  regularization of servicescontract employeesstatutory authorityconstitutional petitionproject posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by contract employees seeking regularization of their services under a provincial government notification. The core legal question is whether contract employees of the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority, established under statutory enactment, are entitled to regularization of their services pursuant to the Government of Punjab's notification dated 14.10.2009, despite objections regarding project-based financing. The Lahore High Court held that since an earlier un-assailed judgment of the court conclusively determined that the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority is a statutory body to which the regularization notification applies, and given that the petitioners were appointed through open competition and continuously served for over a decade without being tied to a specific project, their services must be regularized. The key principle laid down is that findings in a binding prior judgment regarding the applicability of a regularization policy to a statutory authority attain finality if unappealed, and long-serving contract employees of such statutory bodies cannot be arbitrarily denied regularization under the guise of project-based employment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority is an authority to which the Government of Punjab regularization notification applies?
  • Can the Chief Secretary review or bypass findings of the High Court that have attained finality?
  • Whether long-serving contract employees of a statutory authority can be denied regularization on the ground that they are working against project posts financed through PC-1?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum alias Bhutto vs The State and another2016 MLD 1983 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-01
  transfer of casecriminal trialbias of presiding officeradverse judicial orderreasonable apprehension
  Summary & questions settled

  This transfer application was filed by the petitioner seeking the transfer of a Sessions Case from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Tank to the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge, Tank on the ground of loss of confidence and alleged bias of the presiding officer following complaints made against him and adverse judicial orders passed. The core legal question was whether a criminal case should be transferred from one court to another merely on the basis of vague allegations of bias and adverse judicial orders. The Peshawar High Court held that the application was without merit, ruling that adverse judicial orders alone do not justify transferring a case and that unsubstantiated, frivolous allegations against a judicial officer must be rejected to protect presiding officers from undue pressure. The key principle laid down is that while reasonable apprehension can warrant a transfer, a balance must be struck, and cases will not be transferred on the basis of unfounded, conjectured suppositions or mere dissatisfaction with adverse judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal case can be transferred from one court to another solely on the ground of an adverse judicial order?
  • Does a vague and unsupported allegation of bias against a presiding officer constitute sufficient ground for the transfer of a case?
  • How must a court balance the apprehension of litigants with the protection of presiding officers from frivolous allegations when considering a transfer application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom s/o Ghulam Muhammad r/o Bring Bun, Tehsil & District2016-SC-AJK-121 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-03-25
  statutory bailproviso to section 497hardened criminaldesperate criminaldelay in trialcircumstantial evidencebail in murder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the refusal of bail to the appellant, who was charged with murder and other offences under the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having remained in custody for over two years without the conclusion of his trial, was entitled to statutory bail under the proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether he fell within the exception of a "hardened, desperate, and dangerous" criminal. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to bail, as the trial had exceeded two years without fault on his part. The Court emphasized that the classification of an accused as a "hardened, desperate, and dangerous" criminal requires a tentative assessment of specific factors, including motive, the role played, and the nature of the evidence, rather than mere allegations. Finding that the prosecution relied on weak circumstantial evidence and that the Shariat Court had failed to substantiate its finding, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused have a statutory right to bail if the trial is not concluded within two years?
  • What criteria must be applied to determine if an accused is a 'hardened, desperate, and dangerous' criminal for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
  • Can an accused be denied statutory bail based on mere allegations of being a dangerous criminal without supporting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom and another vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 786 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealshort sentencecorruption offencesconcurrent sentences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by the appellants, Abdul Qayoom and Qalandar Bux, who sought the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the decision of their main appeal. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, with their sentences ordered to run concurrently, resulting in a maximum substantive sentence of five years. The core legal question was whether the execution of a sentence should be suspended and bail granted when a convict has already undergone a major portion of a short remaining sentence and the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. The Sindh High Court held that since the appellants had served a substantial portion of their respective sentences and final adjudication would be delayed, the sentences should be suspended. The key principle laid down is that where a convict has served a significant part of a short sentence and the appeal cannot be heard promptly, the sentence may be suspended and bail granted during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a convicted person can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when a major portion of the sentence has already been served?
  • Can bail be granted to appellants facing a short remaining sentence when the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qavi Khan and others vs Chairman NAB and others2016 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-24
  white-collar crimepost-arrest bailpre-arrest bailland grabbingcorruptionreasonable groundsjoint criminal enterprisetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns seven bail applications arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving allegations of land grabbing and illegal allotment of plots in Karachi, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 500 million to the state exchequer. The core legal question was whether the accused, including public officials and private individuals, were entitled to pre-arrest or post-arrest bail given the evidence connecting them to the alleged corruption and corrupt practices. The court held that, based on a tentative assessment of the evidence, there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were involved in a joint criminal enterprise. The court emphasized that in white-collar crimes, the entire transaction must be viewed holistically. It ruled that bail is not to be used as punishment, but where reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to a serious offense, and considering the risk of witness tampering and potential absconsion, bail must be refused. The court affirmed that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and medical grounds were insufficient without proof that prison facilities were inadequate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court should conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage in corruption cases?
  • Does the existence of a medical condition automatically entitle an accused to bail if prison facilities can provide treatment?
  • Can bail be granted in cases of economic crime involving significant loss to the state exchequer where reasonable grounds for guilt exist?
  • Should a court consider the risk of witness tampering and absconsion when deciding on bail applications in complex corruption references?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos vs The State and another2016 LHC 2384 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-01
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquiryFIR delaysupplementary statementcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Qadoos, in relation to FIR No. 1165/15 under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail after arrest given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that there was an unexplained ten-day delay in the registration of the FIR, and the petitioner's name was not originally included but was added later via a supplementary statement. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since December 2015, the investigation was complete, no recoveries were made from him, and he was a first-time offender. The Court held that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigation is complete and the accused is a first-time offender?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Tawakal vs National Accountability Bureau (Sindh)2016 PLD Sindh 105 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen and another vs Ahalian Patti Shalter Mouza Dashkan2016 CLC 21 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-09-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and another vs Fazal Subhan and 2 others2016 MLD 794 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Mst. Gul Reban2016 YLR 685 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik and others vs Mst. Subbha Mai alias Sabbah Mai2016 MLD 925 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-06
  dowerNikah NamaFamily Court jurisdictionpresumption of truthimmovable propertycivil revisionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a family suit filed by the respondent for the recovery of 16 kanals of agricultural land claimed as deferred dower under her Nikah Nama. The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased husband, contested the claim, alleging tampering with the Nikah Nama and challenging the Family Court's jurisdiction over immovable property as dower. The Family Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and the Appellate Court upheld this decision. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that entries in a Nikah Nama carry a strong presumption of truth akin to a registered deed. The Court held that the respondent successfully proved the dower claim through consistent evidence, which remained unrebutted by the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Family Courts possess exclusive jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, to adjudicate disputes involving immovable property claimed as dower. Finally, the Court noted that the revision petition was incompetent as the relevant statute does not provide for such a remedy in family matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute where immovable property is claimed as dower?
  • Do entries in a Nikah Nama carry a presumption of truth equivalent to a registered deed?
  • Is a civil revision competent against an appellate judgment passed under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State2016 PLD Balochistan 102 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-03-02
  double jeopardyautrefois convictspurious drugssubsequent prosecutionDrugs Courtcriminal appealmerits of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted and sentenced by a Judicial Magistrate under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code for dealing in fake, unregistered, and spurious drugs. Subsequently, the Drugs Court for Balochistan also tried and convicted the appellant under sections of the Drugs Act based on the same transaction and allegations. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Drugs Court before the Balochistan High Court, raising the plea of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution, section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and section 26 of the General Clauses Act. The core legal question was whether a person convicted under one enactment can be subsequently prosecuted and punished by another court under a different enactment for the same act or omission. The High Court held that once an accused has been tried and convicted by a competent court for an act constituting an offence, a subsequent trial and conviction for the same offence under a different enactment is barred by constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Drugs Court was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution solely due to the appellant's absconsion after it has been admitted for regular hearing?
  • Does the conviction of an accused by a Judicial Magistrate under the Pakistan Penal Code bar a subsequent trial and conviction by a Drugs Court for the same transaction under the Drugs Act?
  • What are the essential conditions to be satisfied to claim the benefit of protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether prosecution and punishment under two different enactments for the same act or omission violates the principle against double punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2016 P Cr. L J 1874 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-03
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaucorruptionfurther inquirymisappropriationbank fraudconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a bank manager accused of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established sufficient grounds for bail in light of the allegations of misappropriation and the issuance of fake guarantees. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, determining that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The court observed that the alleged victim entities had not filed complaints, there was no clear evidence of personal gain, and the alleged financial loss did not involve the public exchequer, as the involved bank was a private entity. Furthermore, the court noted that the purported guarantees had expired, weakening the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on allegations requiring substantial proof of guilt and the essential ingredients of the offense are not prima facie established, the matter constitutes a case for further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under the principles applicable to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case fall within the category of further inquiry when the alleged victim entities have not filed complaints?
  • Are the principles for grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish that the alleged financial loss involved the public exchequer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Rasheed and others2016 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-07
  benami transactionsurrender of rightsaffidavitconfrontation of witnesspartition suitco-sharerscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the original plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession through partition of a house left by his deceased father was dismissed. The primary legal questions revolved around whether the defendant had successfully established that the property was held benami and whether the other legal heirs had surrendered their rights via an affidavit. The Lahore High Court held that the defendant failed to prove the benami transaction, noting the absence of crucial elements including a specific motive, and further held that the alleged affidavit of surrender of rights was neither legally proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 nor properly confronted to the plaintiff during cross-examination as mandated. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings, accepted the civil revision, and remanded the matter to the trial court to pass a preliminary decree determining the legal shares of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements required to prove a benami transaction, and what is the legal effect of an absence of motive?
  • Can a previous statement or affidavit be used as legal evidence against a party without confronting the witness with it during cross-examination under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the mere exhibition of a document without objection during testimony cure its lack of formal proof under the law of evidence?
  • What is the probative value of an affidavit when the deponent is not produced for cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealleave to appeallife imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment pending the final disposal of an appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner, previously convicted under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court, which also enhanced the compensation amount. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail merely because the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal to examine the appropriateness of the High Court's findings regarding self-defence, the enhancement of compensation, and the impact of a statement made by his counsel. The Court held that the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court does not automatically entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it, affirming that the grounds for leave to appeal do not inherently support a claim for release on bail pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence under Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a convict entitled to bail pending appeal solely because the appellate court is reviewing the findings on self-defence and compensation enhancement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Anjum vs Abida Parveen and another2016 MLD 1509 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →