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.

• Abdul Majeed and others vs Dandot Cement Company Ltd.2016 PLC 93 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2015-10-15
  superannuationservice extensionsettlement agreementlabour lawdiscriminationgrievance petitioncollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the order of the Punjab Labour Court, which dismissed the grievance petitions of two employees seeking an extension of service beyond the age of superannuation. The appellants claimed entitlement to a two-year extension based on Clause 19(C) of a 2009 settlement agreement, alleging that the employer's refusal to grant this extension, despite having granted it to other employees, constituted discrimination and mala fide conduct. The core legal question was whether the appellants could enforce a clause from a settlement agreement that had expired and been subsequently rescinded by the employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) due to financial constraints. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the settlement agreement ceased to be operative after June 30, 2010, and was formally rescinded in 2013. Consequently, the appellants had no vested right to claim the extension. The Tribunal further held that an employer's discretionary decision to extend the service of certain employees in the absence of a binding agreement does not constitute actionable discrimination, as discrimination requires an unfair, intentional classification not present here.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee claim an extension of service based on a settlement agreement that has already expired?
  • Does an employer's discretionary decision to extend the service of some employees but not others constitute actionable discrimination?
  • Can a settlement agreement be rescinded by an employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent due to financial constraints?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maalik vs The State and another2016 YLR 1123 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-03
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionDNA evidencemurder referencecapital punishmentbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Sections 302(b), 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on circumstantial evidence including an alleged extra-judicial confession and subsequent discovery of a skeleton. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence, heavily reliant on an extra-judicial confession and a DNA-matched skeleton, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous, confidence-inspiring chain of circumstantial evidence to exclude every hypothesis of the accused's innocence. The court found the extra-judicial confession unsafe for reliance due to inherent contradictions and unnatural details. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions must be thoroughly scrutinized and must form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused to sustain a capital charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession containing elaborate details can be solely relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Is a DNA report confirming biological remains per se admissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act 2007?
  • Can circumstantial evidence sustain a capital charge in the absence of a complete and confidence-inspiring chain of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Siwijan alias Bibi Jan and another2016 CLC 1293 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-15
  fraudulent transferforensic reportburden of prooforal saleagreement to selldue executionRegular First AppealCapital Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Islamabad, whereby a suit for declaration, possession, mandatory, and permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed in her favor. The core legal controversy revolved around whether the transfer of plot No. 54, Model Village Chak Shahzad, Islamabad, in favor of the appellant through an oral agreement and subsequent CDA transfer application was valid, or whether it was vitiated by fraud, forgery, and misrepresentation regarding the thumb impressions and signatures. The Islamabad High Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the due execution of the transfer application, the payment of the sale consideration, and the genuineness of the agreement to sell, especially in light of the forensic report from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) establishing that the disputed thumb impressions did not match the specimen thumb impressions of respondent No. 1. The court laid down that a beneficiary of a disputed transaction is strictly bound to prove its due execution and that the failure to produce original primary documents and independent attesting witnesses—coupled with adverse inferences under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—renders fraudulent transfers void and ineffective against the true owner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof lies heavily on the beneficiary of a disputed transaction to establish its due execution?
  • Can a transfer of property based on a photocopy of a transfer application without the original thumb impression of the allottee be sustained in law?
  • What are the legal consequences under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party withholds material independent witnesses and fails to prove the execution of an agreement to sell?
  • Whether a court can rely on an expert forensic report regarding disputed thumb impressions when the opposing party fails to cross-examine the expert on the material findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 4 otherss2016 CLC 1553 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-04
  DNA testpaternity disputeinheritance claimcivil suitadoptionforensic evidencewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the lower appellate court, which directed the petitioner to undergo a DNA test to determine his biological paternity in a suit for declaration. The plaintiffs alleged that the petitioner was an adopted child of their parents rather than the biological son of their father, Noor Din, and thus not entitled to inheritance. The petitioner argued that existing documentary evidence, such as birth certificates and academic records, conclusively proved his parentage, rendering a DNA test unnecessary and unreliable. The High Court held that in the modern era, medical science and forensic technology provide essential, reliable tools for judicial determination. The Court reasoned that while documentary evidence exists, a DNA test serves as a significant aiding factor to resolve complex disputes regarding paternity and adoption. The Court affirmed that ordering such a test does not prejudice the petitioner and is a valid exercise of judicial discretion to ascertain the truth, particularly when parties are known. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to facilitate the DNA testing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order a DNA test in a civil suit to determine paternity when documentary evidence is already available?
  • Is a DNA test considered a conclusive proof or merely an aiding factor in determining biological relationships in civil litigation?
  • Does the existence of documentary evidence regarding parentage preclude a court from ordering a DNA test to resolve a dispute over inheritance and adoption?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and others vs The Appellate Authority for Local Counsils2016 CLC 855 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-28
  nomination papersproposer and seconderelectoral unitlocal bodies electionsrejection of nominationsubstantial defectconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of several constitutional petitions filed by candidates whose nomination papers for local bodies elections were rejected because their proposers or seconders did not belong to the same electoral unit or constituency. The core legal question was whether a candidate whose proposer or seconder belongs to a different electoral unit can be permitted to substitute them or cure the defect at a subsequent stage under the election rules. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions requiring a proposer and seconder to be from the same electoral unit are mandatory in nature, and any defect in this regard is substantial and incurable at a subsequent stage by the Returning Officer, Appellate Authority, or even the High Court. The court relied on binding precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court to establish that such invalid nomination forms cannot be subsequently validated, thereby dismissing the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a proposer and seconder of a candidate contesting local bodies elections must be registered voters of the same electoral unit?
  • Is the requirement for a proposer and seconder to belong to the candidate's constituency mandatory in nature?
  • Can a defect regarding an unqualified proposer or seconder be cured or substituted at a subsequent stage by the Returning Officer or the High Court?
  • Does the rejection of a nomination paper due to a proposer or seconder belonging to a different electoral unit constitute a defect of a substantial nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Lateef vs The State and another2016 YLR 704 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Board of Investment and 4 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-01
  up-gradation of postdiscriminationArticle 25equal protection of lawvested rightconstitutional petitionequal pay for equal workreasonable classification
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a Public Relations Officer (BS-16) in the Board of Investment seeking upgradation of his post to BS-17 and subsequent promotion benefits. The petitioner alleged discrimination under Article 25, arguing that similar public relations, protocol, and information officer posts in other federal and provincial departments were assigned BS-17. The core legal questions were whether an employee who voluntarily accepted terms of service in BS-16 can subsequently claim post upgradation under Article 25, and whether distinct posts across different departments with varying qualifications require uniform pay scales. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that equal protection under Article 25 permits reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, such as differing qualifications, duties, and administrative structures across departments. The Court held that to invoke Article 199, the petitioner must prove an infringement of an existing vested legal right. Furthermore, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an absolute fundamental right and cannot override established statutory recruitment rules voluntarily accepted by an employee.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor difference in pay scale for distinct posts across different government departments constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can an employee who voluntarily accepted an appointment under specific terms claim post upgradation through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  • Is the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' an absolute or enforceable fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is the High Court entitled to enter into disputed questions of fact regarding job duties and qualifications under its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State2016 YLR 1000 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Muhammad Saleem Butt2016 C L R 908 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq through L.Rs, and otherss vs Mrs. Razia Begum through L.Rs, and others2016 YLR 2176 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Mandokhel and 2 others vs Chairman, Balochistan Public2016 PLC (C.S.) 1184 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-05-23
  constitutional petitionBalochistan Public Service Commissioncancellation of examinationdepartmental examinationnatural justiceaudi alteram partemterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionre-evaluation of answer sheetsunfair means
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by candidates challenging the decision of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC) to cancel and reschedule the 'Revenue Law-II' departmental examination for Assistant Commissioners/Tehsildars. The cancellation was based on an internal inquiry report that re-evaluated only 10% of randomly selected answer sheets and presumed cheating solely from the correctness of answers matching the textbook, without any complaints, invigilator reports, or hearing given to the candidates. The High Court rejected the preliminary objection under Article 212 of the Constitution, holding that BPSC was not a departmental authority passing a final service order. On the merits, the Court accepted the petition and declared the cancellation illegal and void. The Court held that domestic bodies cannot penalize candidates on mere suspicion or conjectures without concrete legal proof. Furthermore, the action violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), provisions of the Manual of Recruitment, and the rule that statutory powers must be executed strictly in the prescribed manner under Article 4 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar a High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 against decisions or actions of the Balochistan Public Service Commission?
  • Can a public service commission cancel an entire examination paper on presumptive findings of cheating based solely on a random re-evaluation of only 10% of answer sheets?
  • Can adverse administrative decisions canceling examinations be taken against candidates without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing under the principles of natural justice?
  • Does Section 20 of the Balochistan General Clauses Act, 1956 confer power on a Public Service Commission Chairman to unilaterally re-evaluate answer sheets and cancel an examination in the absence of explicit statutory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and another vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 477 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-21
  narcoticspoppy leafscontrol of narcotic substancespolice witnessesrecovery proceedingscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of a large quantity of poppy leaves. The core legal questions involve the credibility of police witnesses in narcotics cases, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and reliable, and that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to such recovery proceedings. The court also reaffirmed the principle that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony carries equal weight in the absence of proven enmity or mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to recovery proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the testimony of police officials alone sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without independent corroboration?
  • Does the absence of private persons as recovery witnesses render the prosecution's case doubtful in narcotics matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khadi vs The State2016 MLD 865 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-07-28
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencydelaying tacticsrobberycriminal trialbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail petition filed by the petitioner, who is charged with offences under Sections 379 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, following the refusal of bail by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that his co-accused had previously been granted bail by the High Court. The Court held that the rule of consistency did not apply in this instance because the petitioner and his co-accused were willfully employing delaying tactics to prevent the framing of charges in the trial court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial had been adjourned multiple times due to requests from the petitioner or his counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the conduct of the accused in delaying the proceedings precluded the application of the rule of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency automatically entitle an accused to bail if a co-accused has been granted the same relief?
  • Can an accused rely on the rule of consistency if they are willfully employing delaying tactics to stall the trial?
  • Is the refusal of bail justified when the accused is responsible for repeated adjournments in the framing of charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Khaliq Jan and another2016 P Cr. L J 513 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-28
  retracted confessionchild witnessdouble murderappreciation of evidenceacquittal appealAnti-Terrorism Actforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Anti-Terrorism Court in a double murder case. The core legal questions concern the admissibility and weight of a retracted judicial confession, the reliability of a child witness not named in the FIR, and the overall sufficiency of evidence including medical and forensic reports. The Court held that a retracted confession, if found voluntary and truthful, is sufficient for conviction without further corroboration, and that the testimony of a child witness is admissible if it is confidence-inspiring and withstands cross-examination, regardless of whether the witness was named in the initial FIR. The Court established that the trial court erred in discarding evidence based on minor discrepancies and irrelevant factors. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the respondent was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, with the Court noting that while the evidence was sufficient for conviction, the retracted nature of the confession served as a mitigating factor against capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession if the court is satisfied it was made voluntarily and truthfully?
  • Is the testimony of a child witness inadmissible simply because they were not named in the FIR?
  • Does the failure to name an eyewitness in the FIR automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a child witness competent to testify if they are capable of understanding and providing rational answers to questions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim s/o Sufi r/o Sari Dara, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad vs Sain2016 SC AJK 25 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Karim s/o Sufi r/o Sari Dara, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad vs Sain2016 SC AJK 241 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-05-17
  suit for possessionspecific reliefcompetency of appealrevision petitionconcurrent findings of factmisreading and non-reading of recordperpetual injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and another suit for recovery of possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, both of which were dismissed by the trial Court. Appeals before the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed, leading to the present appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal questions involved the competence of an appeal against a decree passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the conversion of an incompetent appeal into a revision petition, and whether concurrent findings of fact based on record are open to interference. The Supreme Court held that no appeal lies against an order or decree passed in a suit instituted under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and while an incompetent appeal within limitation can be converted into a revision petition if the court deems fit, no such request was made. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts were found to be based on a proper reading of the record and immune from interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie from any order or decree passed in a suit instituted under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Can an incompetent appeal be converted into a revision petition by the appellate Court?
  • What are the essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below and affirmed by the High Court immune from interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Khan Director, Gammon Pakistan Limited (Appellant in appealAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Khan Director, Gammon Pakistan Limited (Appellant in appealAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Brohi vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1598 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-27
  narcotic traffickingrecovery of charascredibility of excise police witnessesviolation of section 103 Cr.P.C.criminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge CNS, Shikarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking eighty kilograms of charas and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the recovery, and whether the defence plea was wrongly discarded. The High Court held that the prosecution witnesses fully supported the recovery and withstood lengthy cross-examination without material contradictions, that procedural technicalities like section 103 Cr.P.C. are excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that the defence failed to substantiate its claims. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates a recovery made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the evidence of excise police officials be discarded solely on the basis of their official capacity in the absence of proved mala fides?
  • Whether procedural technicalities should be overlooked in cases involving the transportation or possession of large quantities of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The Chairman NAB through Director General National2016 PLD Peshawar 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-30
  recovery of finedefault sentenceNational Accountability Ordinancearrears of land revenuedouble jeopardyspecial lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses three consolidated constitutional petitions filed by convicts who challenged the recovery of fines imposed upon them under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, after they had already undergone both their substantive sentences and the additional imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fines. The core legal questions involved whether the fine remains recoverable after the default sentence is served, whether Section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code limits such recovery to six years, and whether recovery proceedings constitute double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The court held that serving a default sentence does not extinguish the liability to pay the fine, that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is a special law which overrides general penal provisions like the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the fine is recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 33-E of the Ordinance without violating the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed pursuant to the majority opinion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amount of fine imposed by the trial court can be recovered after the convict has served out both the substantive sentence and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine?
  • Does the recovery of fine after serving a default imprisonment amount to double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the recovery of fine under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 subject to the six-year limitation period provided under Section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Do the provisions of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the recovery of fines under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain Tehirally through L. Rs, and others vs Additional District2016 CLC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee-Applicant vs The State2016 MLD 661 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-18
  post-arrest bailnon-compliance of court ordersdelay in trialabductionprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Hayee, who was implicated in Crime No. 120/2013 under sections 364, 337-J, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the abduction and subsequent murder of two women over a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of non-compliance by the trial court with this Court's previous directions to conclude the trial or examine material witnesses within a specified timeframe. The Sindh High Court held that the failure of the trial court to conclude the trial or examine witnesses within the prescribed period does not automatically entitle an accused person to bail. The court laid down the principle that while delay in trial can be a ground, non-compliance with expediting directions alone does not confer an automatic right to bail, and bail must be evaluated on merits or statutory delay, leading to the dismissal of the application with directions for expedited trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with High Court directions to conclude a trial within a specified period automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of non-compliance with an earlier order directing the examination of material witnesses within two months?
  • Does delay caused by the non-production of witnesses or court adjournments provide a sufficient ground for the grant of bail outside of statutory delay or merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb vs Principal, Karnal Sher Khan Cadet College, Swabi and 2 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 1054 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-03
  service regulationsstatutory ruleswrit jurisdictiontermination of servicecompetent authoritynatural justicecadet collegeretrenchment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two writ petitions challenging the termination and retrenchment of college lecturers in BPS-17 and BPS-18 by the Acting Principal/Principal of Karnal Sher Khan Cadet College, Swabi. The core legal questions involved were whether the service regulations of the college are statutory in nature, making the actions amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction, and whether the termination and retrenchment orders were passed by the competent authority in accordance with principles of natural justice. The Peshawar High Court held that since the regulations were framed pursuant to Section 20(2)(e) of the KPK Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 with the prior approval of the Provincial Government and without any statutory requirement for gazette notification, they are statutory rules. The court further held that termination orders for employees in BPS-17 and above could only be passed by the Chairman of the Board under Regulation 18, not the Principal, and that actions involving allegations of misconduct require a proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing. Both petitions were consequently allowed and the impugned orders set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service regulations framed under Section 20 of the KPK Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 are statutory in nature without publication in the official gazette?
  • Does a High Court have writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 over an employment dispute governed by statutory service regulations of a statutory body?
  • Can an Acting Principal or Principal terminate an employee in BPS-17 when the applicable regulations vest such power exclusively in the Chairman of the Board?
  • Is a show-cause notice and formal inquiry mandatory before passing a termination order containing allegations of misconduct that stigmatize an employee's career?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb Sheikh vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, LahoreK.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 225, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1212, 2016 LHC 1208 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2016-04-08
  compulsory retirementenhancement of penaltyinquiry officerminor penaltyadministration committeejurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1994 challenges a notification whereby the appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, was awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the Administration Committee could issue a notice for enhancement of penalty or enhance the penalty when the Inquiry Officer had merely recommended a minor penalty instead of actually imposing/awarding it. The Tribunal held that under Rule 7(7)(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, the authority's power to enhance a penalty only arises if a minor penalty has been validly imposed by the Inquiry Officer and the record is subsequently transmitted. Since the Inquiry Officer failed to formally impose the minor penalty and merely recommended it, the Administration Committee lacked jurisdiction to issue an enhancement notice. Consequently, the impugned notification was set aside, though no reinstatement was ordered as the appellant had attained superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Administration Committee can issue a notice for enhancement of penalty when the Inquiry Officer has merely recommended a minor penalty without formally imposing it?
  • Does the power of the authority to enhance a penalty under Rule 7(7)(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 depend on the prior actual imposition of a minor penalty by the Inquiry Officer?
  • What is the legal effect of an inquiry officer failing to impose a minor penalty before forwarding the record to the competent authority for enhancement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb Sheikh vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore ServiceK.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 225 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2016-04-08
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementservice tribunalenhancement of penaltyjurisdictionminor penaltystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged a notification issued by the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant, a judicial officer. The core legal question was whether the Administration Committee possessed the jurisdiction to issue a notice for enhancement of penalty, or to enhance a penalty, when the Inquiry Officer had merely recommended, but not formally imposed, a minor penalty. The Tribunal held that under Rule 7(7)(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, the authority's power to enhance a penalty is strictly contingent upon a minor penalty having been previously awarded by the Inquiry Officer. Because the Inquiry Officer failed to impose the penalty and instead forwarded the record, the Administration Committee lacked the statutory jurisdiction to enhance the penalty. Applying the principle of 'a communi observantia non est recedendum', the Tribunal ruled that the prescribed procedure was not followed, rendering the enhancement proceedings void. Consequently, the impugned notification was set aside, though no reinstatement was ordered as the appellant had reached the age of superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority enhance a penalty under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, if the Inquiry Officer has not formally imposed a minor penalty?
  • Does the Administration Committee of a High Court have jurisdiction to enhance a penalty without a prior minor penalty order from the Inquiry Officer?
  • What is the legal consequence of an authority failing to follow the prescribed procedure for disciplinary action under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs Sharifan Bibi2016 LHC 1524 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan Darbari vs Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2016 PTD 709 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2016-02-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 240 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-11
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a minor. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the "last seen" theory, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the "last seen" evidence was inconclusive, as the accused was merely present on his own agricultural land, and the alleged extra-judicial confession was unreliable and lacked corroboration. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon from an open, accessible area failed to provide a necessary link in the chain of evidence. The court emphasized that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link must be fully established to form a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted based on the principle of benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the chain of events is incomplete?
  • Does the presence of an accused on his own agricultural land constitute 'last seen' evidence sufficient for conviction?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction without strong corroboration by independent evidence?
  • What is the legal standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence in capital cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-09
  qatl-i-amdcriminal appealocular accountpostmortem examinationmotivecompensation to legal heirsenhancement of sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to life imprisonment, along with a revision petition by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical and circumstantial evidence, the effect of a weak or absent motive, and the legality of awarding compensation. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through prompt reporting, natural presence of eye-witnesses, consistent medical evidence, and the failure of the defence plea. The court laid down that minor omissions in the site plan do not discredit overwhelming ocular evidence, that the absence or weakness of motive does not falsify a proven prosecution case, and that an amount ordered as fine under section 302(b) can be treated and maintained as compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor omissions in the site plan prepared by the investigating officer can dislodge overwhelming and trustworthy ocular testimony?
  • Does the absence or weakness of a motive render an otherwise established prosecution case false or fabricated?
  • Can an amount designated as fine under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be treated and maintained as compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether failure to recover the weapon of offence or a negative firearms expert report adversely affects an otherwise proven murder case supported by reliable eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State and another2016 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-26
  post-arrest bailcrude oil theftprohibitory clauseoil and gas theftcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hameed, in connection with FIR No. 38 registered under sections 462-B, 462-F, 411, and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shah Sadar Din, District Dera Ghazi Khan, involving the alleged theft of 8000 liters of crude oil from a main supply line. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, alleged to be the driver of the truck found in possession of the stolen crude oil, is entitled to post-arrest bail notwithstanding the applicability of offenses falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been caught red-handed at the spot in possession of the stolen crude oil for offenses falling within the prohibitory clause, failed to make out a case for the grant of bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave declined, reinforcing the principle that accused persons prima facie connected with heinous offenses falling within the prohibitory clause are ordinarily not entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused caught red-handed in possession of stolen crude oil from a main supply line entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Do offenses under sections 462-B and 462-F of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the mere role of a truck driver suffice to grant post-arrest bail when the vehicle is used for transporting stolen crude oil?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 104 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-10
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequebusiness transactionfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and grant of bail, considering the prior civil litigation and the disputed nature of the cheque. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail as the business transaction was admitted, a civil suit for cancellation of the cheque and rendition of accounts was pending prior to the FIR, and the cheque appeared to be open without a date and amount. The court established the principle that where a genuine civil dispute regarding accounts and the execution of a cheque exists prior to criminal proceedings, and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case warrants further inquiry, making the accused a fit case for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a civil suit regarding the rendition of accounts and cancellation of the cheque is already pending?
  • Does an offence under Section 489F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in circumstances involving disputed business transactions?
  • What is the effect on a criminal case of issuing an open cheque without a date and amount during a business transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Province of K.P.K. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2016 PLC (C.S.) 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-24
  service mattersuspensioncivil servantwrit jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionservice tribunalalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, challenged an order placing him under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition against a suspension order of a civil servant, or if such jurisdiction is barred by the existence of an alternative remedy before a Service Tribunal. The Peshawar High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that suspension is a temporary measure and not a punishment, and that the petitioner, as a civil servant, is governed by specific disciplinary rules. Crucially, the Court determined that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including suspension pending disciplinary action, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court held that its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court emphasized that when an alternative and efficacious remedy exists before a specialized forum, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge against a suspension order of a civil servant?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a government servant invoke writ jurisdiction when an alternative and efficacious remedy exists before a Service Tribunal?
  • Does the authority having the power to appoint a public servant also possess the power to suspend them pending an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Dogar vs Federal Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior and two others2016 P SC 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  high treasonSpecial Courtinvestigation prerogativeco-accusedjudicial jurisdictioncriminal procedureprosecutorial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court which upheld a Special Court’s direction to the Federal Government to investigate and potentially charge the appellant as a co-accused in the ongoing high treason trial of General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf. The core legal question was whether a Special Court, constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, possesses the jurisdiction to compel the Federal Government to investigate or add specific individuals as co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the Special Court acted beyond its jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the initiation of proceedings and the determination of accused persons in a high treason case is the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government. Consequently, the Special Court lacks the authority to direct the investigating agency to associate specific individuals with an investigation or to introduce new suspects into the trial. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, clarifying that the Special Court must proceed with the trial of the existing accused with all convenient dispatch and without unnecessary delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court have the jurisdiction to direct the Federal Government to investigate or add specific individuals as co-accused in a high treason trial?
  • Can a Special Court, under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, direct an investigation against persons not formally complained against by the complainant?
  • Is the determination of accused persons in a high treason case the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Dogar vs Federal Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 2 others2016 PLJ Sc 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  high treasonSpecial Courtjurisdiction of Special Courtfresh investigationaiders and abettorsprerogative of Federal Governmentcriminal procedureproclamation of emergency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges orders passed by the Special Court and the Islamabad High Court requiring a former Judge of the Supreme Court and two others to be associated as suspects or co-accused in a high treason trial pending against former President General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether a Special Court possesses the jurisdiction to introduce new suspects or direct an investigating agency to associate specific individuals in a fresh investigation after a complaint has already been filed exclusively against the main accused by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the initiation of prosecution and the determination of who to investigate or charge for high treason is the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government, and a Special Court has no jurisdiction under the Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to direct the investigation of individuals not formally complained against by the Government. The Court laid down the principle that courts cannot act on speculation or direct investigations against aiders and abettors when prior judgments have established that the emergency actions were taken by the principal accused acting on his own accord.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 has the jurisdiction to direct the Federal Government or an investigating agency to investigate or add specific individuals as co-accused or suspects during an ongoing trial?
  • Does the power to direct an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 extend to persons who have not been formally complained against by the complainant?
  • Is it within the exclusive domain of the Federal Government to determine against whom a complaint of high treason is to be filed and prosecuted before a Special Court?
  • Can a Special Court postpone the trial of an accused person or await the result of a fresh investigation when no amended statement has been submitted by the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Dogar vs Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry2016 PLD Supreme Court 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  high treasonSpecial Courtfresh investigationprerogative of the Federal Governmentaider and abettorcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from orders passed by a Special Court and the Islamabad High Court directing the reinvestigation of a high treason case against former President General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and requiring the appellant, a former Chief Justice, along with two others, to be associated as suspects and co-accused. The core legal question was whether the Special Court or the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to order the investigation of specific individuals as aiders and abettors or to direct the prosecuting agency to associate particular persons with a fresh investigation. The Supreme Court held that conducting an investigation into the offence of high treason lies exclusively within the prerogative of the Federal Government, and neither the Special Court nor the High Court has the jurisdiction to name or direct that specific individuals be associated with a fresh investigation. The Court emphasized that previous judgments had fixed the entire and exclusive responsibility for the imposition of emergency and the consequent subversion of the Constitution upon General Pervez Musharraf alone. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside all references to the appellant and two others as suspects in the impugned orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 have the jurisdiction to direct the investigating agency to associate specific individuals with a fresh investigation into a high treason charge?
  • Is the initiation and conduct of a fresh investigation into the offence of high treason solely within the prerogative of the Federal Government?
  • Can a court under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 direct an inquiry or investigation against a person not formally complained against before the court?
  • Whether the Special Court can name or introduce new suspects or co-accused into an ongoing high treason trial after the commencement and advanced stage of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Dogar (Former Chief Justice of Pakistan) vs Federal2016 PLD Supreme Court 454, 2016 PLJ Sc 557, 2016 P SC 460, NLR 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-26
  high treasonSpecial Courtinvestigationjurisdiction of Special Courtaiders and abettorsproclamation of emergencycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Islamabad High Court upholding a Special Court's directive to investigate the appellant, a former judge of the Supreme Court, as a co-accused in a high treason trial against former President General Pervez Musharraf. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of the Special Court to direct the investigation of additional suspects not named by the Federal Government, and whether prior judicial declarations regarding the imposition of emergency precluded such action. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the initiation of a complaint and the identification of accused persons in a high treason case lie exclusively within the prerogative of the Federal Government under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976. The Special Court has no jurisdiction under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to introduce new suspects or direct specific investigations once a trial has commenced. The Court reaffirmed that the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007, was the individual act of General Pervez Musharraf, and set aside the orders directing the inclusion of the appellant in the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 have the jurisdiction to direct the Federal Government or investigating agencies to investigate or add new co-accused persons not included in the original complaint?
  • Can a court direct an inquiry or investigation under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 against persons not formally complained against by the complainant?
  • Is the determination of who should be prosecuted or investigated for the offence of high treason the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government?
  • Whether a Special Court can order a fresh investigation and associate specific individuals as suspects at an advanced stage of a trial already commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Aslam vs Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian and 22016 PLJ Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Special Secretary Education, Government2016 SCMR 1611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-09
  annual incrementsun-trained teachersregularizationcivil servant paytemporary appointmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a set of civil appeals filed by PTC/Un-Trained Teachers and various government departments against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had partially allowed the teachers' appeals regarding the grant of annual increments for the period between their initial temporary appointment and their eventual regularization. The core legal question revolves around whether temporary teachers appointed under a special programme are entitled to full annual increments and ancillary pay benefits prior to their regularization pursuant to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that once the service is governed by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant appointed to a post is entitled to the pay sanctioned for such post along with its ancillary privileges, including annual increments, without any discriminatory restriction between trained and untrained teachers. Consequently, the Court allowed the teachers' appeals, granting them full annual increments for the entire pre-regularization period, and dismissed the appeals filed by the department, laying down the principle that temporary appointees governed by the Act are entitled to full pay and increments sanctioned for their posts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary un-trained teachers appointed under a special programme are entitled to annual increments prior to their regularization?
  • Does Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 entitle a civil servant to ancillary privileges of pay such as annual increments?
  • Can a distinction be drawn between trained and untrained teachers regarding the grant of pay and increments under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and 12 others vs Special Secretary Education, Government2016 P.S.C. 761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  annual incrementcivil servantregularization of servicetemporary appointmentservice lawpay and allowancesPunjab Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by both teachers and the Education Department against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment regarding the entitlement of teachers to annual increments for the period served prior to their regularization. The teachers, initially appointed on a temporary basis under a special development program, sought increments for their pre-regularization service. The core legal question was whether these teachers, governed by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, were entitled to annual increments for the period preceding their formal confirmation. The Supreme Court held that the teachers' services were governed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, and consequently the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Under Section 16 of the Act, a civil servant is entitled to the pay sanctioned for their post, which includes ancillary privileges like annual increments. The Court rejected the Tribunal’s bifurcation of the increment entitlement, ruling that the teachers were entitled to full annual increments for the entire period prior to their regularization, establishing that no legal distinction exists between trained and untrained teachers regarding such entitlements.

  Questions settled

  • Are teachers appointed on a temporary basis entitled to annual increments for the period served prior to their regularization?
  • Does Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, entitle a civil servant to annual increments for service rendered before formal confirmation?
  • Is there a legal distinction between trained and untrained teachers regarding the entitlement to annual increments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State2016 YLR 1418 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-04
  plea of alibibenefit of doubtmurderocular testimonyinterested witnessescriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2013 and Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2013 arising from a murder and assault case. The appellant, Abdul Haleem, challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question involved the reliability of interested ocular testimony, the corroborative value of delayed forensic reports, and the substantiation of the appellant's special plea of alibi. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution evidence suffered from material infirmities, lack of independent corroboration, and unexplained delays in dispatching crime empties to the forensic laboratory. Furthermore, the appellant successfully established his plea of alibi through consistent oral and documentary evidence, including police station roznamcha records and hospital registers, while evidence also pointed toward possible false implication due to prior animosity with the local police SHO. The court laid down the principle that an established plea of alibi, supported by contemporaneous official records and corroborated by defense witnesses, creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal, thereby setting aside the conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt, and dismissing the revision for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an established plea of alibi supported by contemporaneous official records is sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in dispatching crime empties and weapons to the forensic science laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of expert reports?
  • Can the conviction be sustained on the basis of testimony from related and interested witnesses when independent corroboration is lacking?
  • Whether prior animosity between an accused and the local investigating police officer raises a strong probability of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs Messrs Gulshan-E-Faisal Coop. Housing Society Ltd.2016 YLR 1557 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-14
  declarationcancellation of documentsoral giftmutationcooperative housing societylimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, permanent injunction, and damages, claiming to be the lawful owner of a residential plot sub-leased by the first defendant cooperative housing society. The plaintiff alleged that the plot was fraudulently transferred to the sixth defendant on the basis of a forged and unregistered declaration of an oral gift, who subsequently conveyed it to other defendants through multiple sale deeds. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the underlying gift and subsequent conveyance deeds were valid. The Sindh High Court held that the defendants failed to establish the validity of the oral gift due to a lack of evidence regarding its essential ingredients—namely declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—as well as the absence of original title documents. The court concluded that since the foundational gift was invalid and forged, all subsequent mutations and conveyance deeds derived therefrom were null and void. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation for the cancellation of a document such as a gift deed runs from the date of its execution or from the date of knowledge of the alleged fraud?
  • What are the essential ingredients under Muhammadan Law for a valid oral gift to take effect?
  • Does a mutation recorded in the records of a cooperative housing society independently prove the genuineness and execution of an underlying gift deed?
  • What is the legal effect on subsequent conveyance deeds when the foundational gift deed transferring the property is found to be forged and invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem and another vs The State and 2 others2016 P Cr. L J 482 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-11-02
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsuccessive bail applicationsfurther inquirybailable offencemiscarriage of justicecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the appellate court's order setting aside the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate. The core legal questions involve the validity of cancelling bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the maintainability of successive bail applications on fresh grounds, and whether the alleged injuries fell within a bailable category. The Balochistan High Court held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without strong, cogent, and convincing grounds, that successive bail applications on fresh grounds are permissible, and that offences punishable under section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are bailable in nature. The court laid down the principle that the power to cancel bail is not punitive, that each criminal case must be decided on its own merits, and that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as punishment, thereby setting aside the appellate court's order and restoring the bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong, cogent, and convincing grounds?
  • Does the law of bail impose an embargo on filing successive bail applications on fresh grounds?
  • Is an offence punishable under section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable in nature?
  • Whether the provision of section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is punitive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hai through L.Rs. and others vs Settlement Authorities and 162016 MLD 91 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez-Appellant vs Mahmood Ahmad alias Mooda and another2016 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-01
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actvexatious arrestpolice misconductcriminal appealacquittalspecial lawprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court judgment that, while acquitting the respondent of a narcotics charge, simultaneously ordered the registration of a criminal case against the complainant police officer under Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court could summarily order such registration without establishing that the complainant’s actions were 'vexatious and unnecessary.' The High Court held that while Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is a special law that overrides general procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, its invocation is not automatic upon acquittal. The Court established the principle that the penal provisions of Section 26 are reserved for instances where it is explicitly proven on the record that the seizure or arrest was vexatious and unnecessary. Because the trial court failed to substantiate that the complainant acted with malice or without reasonable cause, and relied on extraneous factors, the High Court set aside the direction for the registration of the case against the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 apply to searches conducted under Section 22 of the same Act?
  • Is a court required to follow the procedures under Sections 190, 195, or 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before initiating proceedings under Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does an acquittal of an accused in a narcotics case automatically justify the registration of a case against the complainant under Section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs The State and others2016 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-23
  post-arrest bailforgeryfraudprohibitory clauseundertakingcancellation of bailIqrarnama
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for post-arrest bail arose from an FIR registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, involving allegations of preparing a forged agreement (Iqrarnama) to usurp agricultural land and defraud the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory prohibitions. The Supreme Court noted that the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During proceedings, the petitioner's counsel provided a categorical undertaking that the petitioner was not involved in the forgery and would neither claim benefit from nor utilize the impugned document in any forum. Based on this undertaking, the complainant withdrew objections to the bail application. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, granted bail subject to a surety bond, and established the principle that bail granted on the basis of a specific undertaking may be cancelled if the accused subsequently flouts the spirit of that commitment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on the basis of a specific undertaking by counsel that the accused will not utilize a contested document?
  • Does the complainant retain the right to seek cancellation of bail if an accused violates the spirit of an undertaking given to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 22016 PLJ Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Habib Rajwani vs Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2016 P.C.T.L.R. 343 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2015-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and others vs Raiwind Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd.2016 CLD 1400 · Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal · 2016-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and another-Applicants vs The State2016 MLD 416 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-19
  pre-arrest bailkidnapping for ransomaffidavit of abducteemala fidestentative assessmentAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Ghani and Nadir, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 365-A, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail based on an affidavit filed by the abductee exonerating them, despite being named in the FIR and implicated in statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish the necessary grounds for pre-arrest bail, particularly the element of mala fides. The court emphasized that an affidavit filed by a prosecution witness at the bail stage cannot be treated as conclusive evidence and must be scrutinized by the trial court. Furthermore, the court held that the material collected during the investigation must be assessed tentatively, and given the gravity of the offence, which carries capital punishment, the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can an affidavit filed by an abductee at the bail stage be treated as conclusive evidence to grant pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the absence of mala fides a sufficient ground to reject an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Should the court rely on an affidavit exonerating the accused when the accused is named in the FIR and implicated in statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor, etc vs Anjum Kamal Mirza, etc2016 LHC 1031 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and otherss vs Anjum Kamal Mirza and others-2016 LHC 1031, 2016 YLR 2297 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and othersK.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 104, 2016 LHC 601, 2016 PLJ Lahore 748, 2016 YLR 2405 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another. vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore etc2016 LHC 601 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore,K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 104 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore etc2016 PLJ Lahore 748 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State etc.2016 LHC 3892 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20
  narcotics controlsafe custody of samplechain of custodyfair trialwithheld witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-C of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal questions involve whether the failure of the trial court to procure the attendance of a prosecution witness for cross-examination after remand violates the right to a fair trial, whether the sole uncorroborated testimony of a police witness is sufficient to maintain a narcotics conviction, and whether a break or intrusion in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of narcotics samples to the Chemical Examiner casts fatal doubt on the prosecution case. The Lahore High Court held that the failure to secure the witness for cross-examination violated the constitutional right to a fair trial, that the sole deposition of the police witness lacked necessary independent corroboration, and that the unexplained intervention of an 'ETO' as a forwarding officer created serious doubt regarding the safe custody of the sample. The court laid down that the prosecution must prove the unbroken safe custody of narcotic samples and provide corroboration for police testimony, and that an accused cannot be prejudiced or subjected to repeated remands due to the state's failure to complete a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the trial court to procure the attendance of a material witness for cross-examination after a remand violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9-C of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained on the sole uncorroborated deposition of a police witness when another key recovery witness is withheld?
  • Does the unexplained intervention of an unauthorized forwarding officer in transmitting a narcotics sample to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the proof of safe custody of the contraband?
  • Is a criminal case liable to be remanded a second time when the prosecution and trial court fail to afford a proper fair trial during the first remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and others2016 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-09
  bail cancellationsodomyDNA testfurther enquirymedical evidencecriminal appealcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from a challenge to a Lahore High Court order that cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail despite a medical report and DNA analysis suggesting that the alleged offense had not occurred. The Supreme Court observed that the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report and the subsequent final medical opinion dated July 27, 2015, indicated that no act of sodomy was committed. Furthermore, the petitioner had already remained incarcerated for approximately nine months. The Court held that the High Court erred in its decision, as the medical evidence rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the original bail-granting order. The key principle reaffirmed is that where medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's allegations, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court is justified in cancelling bail when medical and DNA evidence contradicts the commission of the alleged offense?
  • Does a medical opinion stating no act of sodomy was committed make a case one of 'further enquiry' for the purposes of bail?
  • Can a bail-granting order be restored if the appellate court finds the lower court's cancellation was based on an erroneous assessment of forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil vs The State2016 YLR 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-24
  post-arrest bailrapemedical evidenceprima facie casetrial delaydeeper appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Adil, in a case registered under Sections 376, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of rape and abetment. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the delay in the trial and the arguments regarding the lack of DNA evidence and the existence of a prior financial dispute. The Court held that the bail application should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision is that the victim's testimony, which fully implicated the accused, was corroborated by medical evidence confirming pregnancy. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, it is not permissible to engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence, especially when there is prima facie material connecting the accused to a serious offence punishable by imprisonment of up to 25 years. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient prima facie evidence, including consistent victim testimony and medical corroboration, the accused is not entitled to bail, regardless of trial delays or arguments requiring deeper evidentiary analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application can be granted when the victim's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence of pregnancy?
  • Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence during the bail stage?
  • Does a delay in the conclusion of a trial automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 779 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailineffective firingcriminal appealsindh high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar Marfani, seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to him through the judgment dated 08.09.2015, whereby he was convicted under Section 324 and Section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively. The core legal question was whether the sentence of the appellant should be suspended and bail granted pending the final hearing of the main appeal. The Sindh High Court held that since the prosecution case was one of ineffective firing with no injuries sustained by anyone, the appellant remained on bail during trial without misusing the concession, and the preparation of the paper book and final adjudication would take time, the application deserved to be allowed. The court laid down the principle that where a conviction involves ineffective firing with no resultant injuries and the appeal is not likely to be heard at an early date, the sentence may be suspended and the convict enlarged on bail pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentence awarded for ineffective firing under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be suspended pending appeal?
  • Does the fact that an accused remained on bail during trial without misusing the concession justify the suspension of sentence?
  • Can the delay in the preparation of the paper book and final adjudication of an appeal serve as a ground for granting bail after conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Mallah and another and 4 Others vs Province of Sindh2016 SHC 67 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and another vs The State2016 MLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and another vs Abdul Rauf and 2 others2016 PLC 138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2015-08-10
  Labour Union ElectionsWorkman DefinitionSupervisory CapacityTenure ExpiryUsurperIndustrial RelationsBPS-16 Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a Labour Court judgment that declared union elections null and void and ordered fresh elections. The core legal questions were whether office bearers could conduct elections after their statutory tenure expired and whether an employee holding a BPS-16 supervisory position qualifies as a "workman" eligible to contest union elections. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the petitioners, having continued in office beyond their two-year tenure, lacked the mandate to conduct elections and were essentially usurpers. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed that the petitioner, despite holding an acting charge, performed duties of a supervisory and managerial nature, thereby excluding him from the definition of "workman" under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the election process was invalid and that the petitioner was ineligible to hold union office. The judgment reinforces the principle that union office bearers cannot extend their tenure unilaterally and that the determination of "workman" status depends on the nature of duties performed rather than mere designation.

  Questions settled

  • Can office bearers of a trade union conduct elections after the expiry of their statutory tenure?
  • Does an employee holding an acting charge of a BPS-16 supervisory position qualify as a 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • What is the legal status of office bearers who continue to hold office beyond their term without conducting fresh elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and 3 others vs The Chairman, National Accountability2016 YLR 403 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baseer Tajwar s_o Abdul Naseer r_o Authmuqam City, District Ne_77350e742016 SC AJK 50 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Baseer Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Finance Department, Peshawar and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 1147 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-10
  medical reimbursementgovernment servantsmedical attendance rulesprivate hospital treatmentex-post facto sanctionadministrative policyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions filed by judicial officers seeking reimbursement for medical expenses incurred for their parents' treatment at private hospitals. The core legal question was whether government servants are entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospitals when requisite facilities are unavailable in government hospitals, despite an administrative policy banning such reimbursements. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to reimbursement. It established the principle that an administrative letter or internal policy direction cannot override the express provisions of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959, without a formal amendment to the rules. The Court affirmed that where facilities are unavailable in government hospitals and the necessary medical referral or ex-post facto sanction is obtained, the government is obligated to reimburse the expenses. The petitions were allowed, with the direction that the reimbursement is subject to the final outcome of pending appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, ensuring the petitioners remain liable to return the funds if the higher court reverses the underlying precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative letter or policy direction override the express provisions of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959?
  • Are government servants entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment in private hospitals when facilities are unavailable in government hospitals?
  • Is a court-ordered reimbursement of medical expenses subject to reversal if the underlying legal precedent is overturned by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Khadim vs Government of Balochistan2016 PLC (C.S.) 177 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-15
  constitutional petitiondepartmental appealservice tribunallimitationretiree benefitssalary arrears
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by a retired civil servant seeking a direction to the competent authority to decide his pending departmental appeal regarding salary, perks, and reimbursements, thereby enabling him to approach The Balochistan Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition could be entertained to direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal when the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal had ostensibly lapsed. The Court held that since the only effective relief sought was a direction for the disposal of the pending departmental appeal, it was unnecessary to delve into the merits or determine the limitation question regarding the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the competent authority to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within one month. The key principle laid down is that a High Court may issue a direction to a departmental authority to decide a pending departmental appeal without entering into the merits or the question of limitation concerning subsequent remedies before a service tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to seek a direction for the decision of a pending departmental appeal?
  • Can a High Court direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal without resolving the question of limitation for filing a service appeal?
  • Does the failure to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the stipulated period bar a constitutional direction for the disposal of a departmental representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz, etc. vs Syed Muhammad Naseer Shah2016 C.L.R. 287 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-20
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadburden of proofservice of noticeattesting witnessescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal questions concern whether the plaintiff satisfied the mandatory requirements for pre-emption, specifically the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish these demands. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that a pre-emptor must explicitly state the time and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint to allow for the calculation of the statutory period for Talb-i-Ishhad. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the failure to examine the informer of the sale and the failure to produce the postman to prove the service of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad are fatal to the suit. Additionally, the court reiterated that the law mandates the examination of two truthful witnesses to prove the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad. Consequently, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to specify the time and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint?
  • Does the failure to examine the informer of a sale in a pre-emption suit raise an adverse presumption against the plaintiff?
  • Is the examination of a postman necessary to prove the service of a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad when the defendant denies receipt?
  • Does the law require the examination of two truthful witnesses to prove the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Haroon2016 MLD 1335 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Colony Co-Operative Farming Union Ltd., (Ccful), Khanewal through General Secretary and 2 others2016 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 112 · Labour Appellate Tribunal
  grievance petitionlimitation periodlabour lawtermination of servicePunjab Industrial Relations Act 2010time-barredwrong forum
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a former Chak Manager, challenged his 1982 termination following a conviction by a Special Military Court. After his release in 1988, he pursued various departmental appeals and a petition before the Punjab Service Tribunal before filing a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Labour Court dismissed the petition as time-barred. On appeal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal affirmed this decision. The core legal question was whether the grievance petition was maintainable given the significant delay. The Tribunal held that the petition was hopelessly time-barred, as the cause of action arose in 1982, or at the latest upon his release in 1988. The Tribunal established that the statutory limitation period of three months for filing a grievance notice under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, is mandatory. Furthermore, the pursuit of remedies in an incorrect forum, such as a Service Tribunal, does not extend the limitation period for labour grievances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming that stale claims cannot be revived through belated litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pursuit of a remedy in an incorrect forum, such as a Service Tribunal, toll the limitation period for filing a grievance petition under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Is a grievance petition filed decades after the date of termination maintainable under Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does the pardon or remission of a sentence by a Martial Law Administrator automatically entitle a convicted employee to reinstatement in service?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Azhar Abbas and others2016 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz s/o Abdullah, Caste Sulehria r/o Ghan Chatter, Tehsil & District2016-SC AJK-196 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-04-12Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 113 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-04
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirymurdercommon objectcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the rule of consistency and the findings of the investigating officer. The Court observed that a co-accused, who had been attributed an identical role, had already been granted bail by the trial court. Furthermore, the investigation report indicated that the petitioner was merely present at the scene and had not fired any shots or caused any injuries to the deceased or the complainant. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner’s case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the petitioner’s continued detention would serve no useful purpose as the investigation was complete and the trial had not yet commenced, the Court granted the bail petition, affirming that the rule of consistency must be applied to ensure equitable treatment of similarly situated accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted relief?
  • When does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the investigation reveals they did not commit the specific overt act of firing or causing injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another- vs Asif Abbas and 3 others-2016 CLD 555 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-17
  summary suitconditional leave to defenddishonoured chequesfailure to furnish suretynegotiable instrumentsrecovery of money
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs.4,200,000.00 based on dishonoured cheques issued in connection with a Saving/Bachat Committee. Defendants 1 to 3 were granted conditional leave to appear and defend the suit subject to furnishing surety, while the application of defendant No.4 was dismissed as time-barred resulting in a decree against him. Defendants 1 to 3 failed to furnish the required surety within the stipulated time, and their appeal against the conditional leave order was dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether a suit under Order XXXVII can be decreed against defendants who fail to comply with the condition of furnishing surety imposed while granting leave to defend. The court held that non-compliance with a conditional leave order results in the deemed dismissal of the leave application, entitling the plaintiff to a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly when statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 apply and the defendants fail to rebut the claim.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a defendant fails to fulfill the condition on which leave to defend was granted?
  • Does the pendency of an application for restoration of a dismissed appeal operate as an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court?
  • Whether the contents of a plaint are deemed to be admitted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 upon the failure of the defendant to comply with a conditional leave order?
  • What presumption attaches to cheques under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in a summary suit for recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another vs Asif Abbas and 3 others2016 CLD 555, 2016 CLC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abaid Ullah vs The State, Etc2016 MLD 1107, 2016 NLR Criminal 545 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
• Abaid Ullah vs The State and others2016 MLD 1107 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmurdereyewitness credibilitypost-mortem delayappellate acquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of eyewitness accounts, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination, and contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that numerous dents in the prosecution story—including doubtful eyewitness presence, discrepancies in who shifted the injured to the hospital, unnatural conduct of witnesses, and unproven motive against the appellant—created serious doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Court established the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination weaken the evidentiary value of an FIR?
  • Whether contradictions regarding who transported an injured victim to the hospital can render eyewitness testimony unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when reasonable doubts exist in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the physical evidence and site plan contradict the sequence of events narrated by eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Aba Ali Habib Securities (Private) Limited Through Chief Executive Officer, vs NotSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Aasia Jabeen and 3 otherss vs Liaqat Ali and otherss2016 SCMR 1773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-14
  restitution of possessionlis pendenspre-emptionbona fide purchaserreversal of decreeinherent powerssection 144 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petitions were filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld orders granting restitution of possession under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had obtained possession of disputed land pursuant to a High Court pre-emption decree passed under a compromise, but that decree was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court. The core legal questions were whether restitution of possession could be ordered when subsequent purchasers claimed bona fide purchase without notice and raised constructions, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applied. The Supreme Court held that setting aside the High Court decree collapsed the entire superstructure built upon it, restoring the parties to their original position. Sub-purchasers who acquired rights or made improvements during the pendency of litigation were bound by lis pendens and could not claim bona fide status. Inherent powers under Section 151 read with Section 144 CPC were rightly exercised to prevent endless litigation. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether restitution of possession under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is available when a decree under which possession was taken is subsequently set aside by an appellate court?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to subsequent purchasers of land who buy during the pendency of proceedings or review petitions before the court?
  • Can a court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to direct restitution of property to prevent the perpetuation of injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Aashique Ali Chandio and another vs The State2016 MLD 1377 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-19
  pre-arrest baildouble murdermala fideextraordinary reliefcriminal trialfalse implicationbail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by accused persons facing trial for double murder under Sections 452, 302, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being directly nominated in the FIR by an eyewitness who was the father of one of the deceased. The court dismissed the application, holding that the accused failed to establish mala fide or satisfy the stringent requirements for pre-arrest bail. The court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and requires demonstrating reasonable grounds for innocence and ulterior motives by the prosecution. Furthermore, the court held that arguments regarding enmity and discrepancies in the prosecution's story are matters to be adjudicated during the trial, not at the pre-arrest bail stage. The judgment emphasizes that where there is prima facie strong evidence connecting the accused to a heinous crime, the court’s discretion must be exercised with caution, prioritizing the requirements of Sections 496-498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute or alternative for post-arrest bail?
  • Can enmity and doubts in the prosecution story be examined at the stage of pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the essential conditions a petitioner must satisfy to be granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of reasonable grounds for believing an accused committed a non-bailable offence necessitate the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Aashiq Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif2016 C L R 818 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-02Read full judgment →
• Aamir Naveed vs Sana Ambreen and 2 others2016 YLR 2830 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-19Read full judgment →
• Aamir Iqbal Khan vs Muhammad Yaqoob Jaura, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 608 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-22
  limitation periodcondonation of delayappeal against acquittalspecial leave to appealcriminal proceduretime-barred petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 seeking condonation of delay in filing a criminal petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment passed by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to condone the delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is not applicable to Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because Section 417 prescribes a special and distinct period of limitation, thereby excluding Section 5 by virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908. The court laid down the principle that where a special law provides a specific period of limitation and excludes general provisions, an application for special leave to appeal against acquittal filed beyond the prescribed period of sixty days cannot be entertained, and delay cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to proceedings under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can delay in filing a criminal petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for a complainant to file a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Iqbal Khan vs Muhammad Yaqoob Jaura, etc2016 LHC 93 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-22
  condonation of delayappeal against acquittallimitation periodspecial leave to appealcriminal proceduredouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 seeking condonation of delay in filing a criminal petition for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali in a complaint case under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to condone delay in filing an appeal or special leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the special period of limitation prescribed therein and the saving provisions of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is not applicable to proceedings governed by Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because Section 29 expressly excludes the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act where special or local laws prescribe different limitation periods. The court laid down the principle that an application for special leave to appeal against an acquittal filed by a complainant must strictly adhere to the sixty-day limitation period prescribed under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failure to provide sufficient explanation or filing beyond time results in the dismissal of the petition as time-barred, reinforced by the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to condone delay in filing an appeal or special leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the limitation period prescribed for a complainant to file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked when a special law prescribes a distinct period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Iqbal Khan vs Maria Nargis and 2 others2016 MLD 1862 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-13Read full judgment →
• Aamir Abbas vs State and anothersPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 809 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-13
  post-arrest bailunlawful assemblydelayed FIRco-accused declared innocentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 9/2016 registered under Sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), 354, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Haveli Koranga, Khanewal, on allegations of being a member of an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court reasoned that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately sixty hours in lodging the FIR, co-accused were declared innocent during investigation, there was no allegation of repetition of fire against the petitioner, the investigation was complete making further incarceration pointless, and reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner's non-involvement. The key principle laid down is that delayed lodging of an FIR, coupled with the exoneration of co-accused during investigation and the completion of the investigative process without necessity of further incarceration, warrants the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does the exoneration of co-accused persons during investigation support the case for bail of another co-accused?
  • Whether the completion of investigation and the fact that further incarceration serves no useful purpose justifies the release of an accused on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• A.M. Mohamud vs WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC2016 SCMR 963, K.L.R. 2016 S.C. 109 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• A. Habib Ahmed and anothers vs Meezan Bank Limited (Former Hongkong2016 CLD 2125, 2016 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27
  banking recoverypledged sharespawnee's right of salerunning financereasonable noticeprospectuswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court, whereby the respondent-bank's suit for recovery of running finance facilities through the sale of pledged shares was decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent-bank complied with the mandatory requirements of issuing a reasonable notice before selling pledged securities under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872, and whether prior approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was required under section 62 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 before a scheduled bank could sell pledged shares held as security. The court held that the respondent-bank duly issued a valid notice of sale under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872, and that scheduled banks acting in the normal course of banking business are exempt from obtaining prior approval under section 62 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The court laid down that a notice under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872 is valid if it clearly demands the outstanding debt and intimates the intention to sell pledged goods upon default, even without citing specific provisions of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a notice issued by a pawnee under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872 become invalid merely for failing to refer to the relevant provision of law?
  • Whether a scheduled bank or financial institution is required to obtain prior approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under section 62 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 before selling pledged shares acquired in the normal course of business?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable before the High Court without appending a certified copy of the impugned order as mandated by the procedural rules?
  • Can a party raise a plea regarding the non-adjustment of specific sale proceeds and dividend amounts for the first time in an appeal when such facts were never pleaded in the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Habib Ahmed and another vs Meezan Bank Limited (Former Hongkong2016 CLD 2125 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
• A-Corn Distributors through its Proprietor Muhammad Ahsan Rasheed vs The District Consumer Court, Lahore and 2 others2016 C.L.R 1668 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
• A M Mohamud vs WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC2016 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• 1.Mr. Iqbal Latif 103-a, Phase II G.E.H.S Link Road Model town Lahore AirAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• 1. Mst. Khursheed Begum w/o Muhammad Ghous Khan (late), Caste2016 SC AJK 53 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-08
  child custodyguardianshipwelfare of minornatural guardianmother custody rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Shariat Court, which dismissed the appellants' appeal regarding the custody and guardianship of a minor. The core legal questions involve the determination of the minor's custody and guardianship upon the death of the grandfather, with whom a previous compromise was reached, and the competing claims of the mother versus the paternal grandparents in the absence of active interest by the father. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the welfare of the minor is paramount and, given that the father is abroad and has shown no interest in seeking custody, the mother remains the natural guardian and best suited to protect the welfare of the minor, notwithstanding the fact that the minor has attained the age of seven years or expressed temporary unwillingness. The key principle laid down is that the preferential right of a father to custody after a male child attains the age of seven years does not apply when the father fails to claim custody or show interest, making the mother the rightful custodian in the interest of the minor's welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mother can be denied the custody of her minor child solely on the ground that the child has attained the age of seven years when the father has shown no interest in seeking custody?
  • Does the temporary unwillingness of a minor to accompany the mother serve as the sole criterion for determining custody and guardianship?
  • What is the effect of the death of a grandfather on a prior custody compromise reached during litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• 1. Kohinoor Looms Limited 111-E/6, Model Town Lahore 2. Mr. Zia QureshiAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• (in CP. 2532/15)Majeed and Sons Steels (Pvt) Ltd.(in CP.NLR 2016 Tax 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  customs dutyregulatory dutymultilateral trade agreementGATTtreaty enforcementmunicipal lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the levy of customs duties. The core legal question was whether the cumulative incidence of customs duties under subsections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 18 of the Customs Act exceeded the rates agreed to by the Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements, specifically referencing Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 18(5) of the Customs Act is clear and unambiguous, and the regulatory duties imposed did not exceed the rates prescribed in the relevant tariff tables. The Court further held that international agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral, cannot be enforced in domestic courts unless they have been incorporated into municipal law through specific legislation. The key principle laid down is that courts cannot supply omissions in a statute or repair legislative blunders, nor can they enforce treaty rights that have not been enacted into domestic law by the legislature.

  Questions settled

  • Can international treaties be enforced in domestic courts without legislative incorporation?
  • Does the proviso to Section 18(5) of the Customs Act allow for the inclusion of bilateral agreements under the umbrella of multilateral trade agreements?
  • Can courts read words into a statute that the legislature has deliberately omitted?
  • Does the cumulative incidence of customs duties under the Customs Act exceed the rates agreed upon under multilateral trade agreements?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) The State (2) Muhammad Ishtiaq vs (1) Muhammad Ishtiaq (2) The State etc2016 LHC 3982 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  murder referencecriminal appealhostile witnessidentification in darknessmedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court arises from Crl. Appeal No.1008 of 2011 and Murder Reference No.163 of 2011, concerning the conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Ishtiaq under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Usman Ali. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, shot the deceased after their shop was set on fire. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness identification at night, the evidentiary value of a declared hostile witness, the corroborative scope of medical evidence regarding the identity of the culprit, and the proof of motive. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of a reliable light source, absence of corroborative recoveries from the crime scene, and unproven motive. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that medical evidence only proves the nature of injuries and weapon type but cannot identify the culprit, and an unlit, distant nighttime occurrence casts grave doubt on eyewitness identification.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to identify the perpetrator of a crime?
  • Can the evidence of a witness declared hostile still be considered by the court to determine truthfulness?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an FIR recorded after preliminary police investigation at the spot?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when identification of the accused is based on an unlit and distant vantage point at night?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Muhammad Shoaib & others (2) Ms.Nabila Zafar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2016 SHC 79 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-15Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Sattar (2) Raja Muhammad Iqbal (3) Muhammad Anwar vs (1) Tariq Javaid and others (2) Muhammad Sadiq (decd) through L.Rs., etc. (3) Muhammad Akram, etc_2016 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performanceagreement to sellcontract validityimmovable propertyconsensus ad idemequitable reliefcontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals concern the enforceability of agreements to sell immovable property that were not signed by the vendees. The core legal question was whether the absence of a vendee's signature renders such an agreement invalid and unenforceable in law. The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell is not automatically invalid merely because it lacks the signature of one party. The Court clarified that the validity of a contract is determined by the existence of an offer, acceptance, and consideration under the Contract Act, 1872, rather than the presence of formal signatures. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the validity of a contract and the discretionary relief of specific performance under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The principle laid down is that while an agreement must be proved in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the lack of a signature does not per se invalidate a contract if the parties' consensus and the agreement's terms can be established through evidence of conduct or other admissible means.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to sell immovable property invalid solely because it is not signed by the vendee?
  • Does Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, determine the validity of a contract or the court's discretion to grant specific performance?
  • Can a valid and enforceable contract be formed through implied acceptance or conduct under the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Does the lack of a formal signature affect the enforceability of a contract if the agreement has been acted upon by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mst. Jameela (2) Raja Zafar Mehmood and others vs (1) Raja Zafar2016 LHC 4243 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• (1) Dr. Farhat Abbas (2) Chief Executive, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar2016 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  medical faculty appointmentservice lawpromotion criteriasubordinate legislationultra viresPMDC regulationscardiology professorship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals against a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the promotion of Dr. Farhat Abbas to Associate Professor of Cardiology. The core legal question was whether the appellant, holding an FCPS in Medicine, was eligible for promotion to Associate Professor of Cardiology under the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/ Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate & Postgraduate Medical & Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011, and whether Regulation 19 of said Regulations was ultra vires the Pakistan Medical & Dental Council Ordinance, 1962. The Supreme Court held that Regulation 19 explicitly permits candidates with general postgraduate qualifications in Medicine or Surgery, who have served as Assistant Professors in a sub-specialty, to be promoted to Associate Professor without preference for specific sub-specialty degree holders. Finding no evidence that Regulation 19 was ultra vires or invalid, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upholding the appellant's promotion. The key principle established is that subordinate legislation remains valid unless specifically proven to be ultra vires the parent statute, and clear regulatory provisions governing academic appointments must be applied as written.

  Questions settled

  • Does Regulation 19 of the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/ Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate & Postgraduate Medical & Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011 allow for the promotion of an Assistant Professor with a general postgraduate qualification to the post of Associate Professor in a sub-specialty?
  • Can a regulation framed under the Pakistan Medical & Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 be struck down without establishing it is ultra vires the parent statute?
  • Is a candidate holding a general postgraduate qualification in Medicine eligible for promotion to Associate Professor of Cardiology if they have the requisite teaching experience as an Assistant Professor in that sub-specialty?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Baqir Hussain etc. (2) Ghulam Hassan (3) The State vs (1) The State etc.2016 LHC 3969 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-07
  murder appealdeath sentence confirmationocular and medical conflictwithholding material witnessadverse inferencemotive as a double-edged weaponevidentiary value of abscondenceplea of alibiacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants for murder, along with a connected murder reference for confirmation of death sentences and an appeal against an acquittal. The prosecution case centered on an alleged daylight shooting stemming from an old enmity, resulting in the death of two victims. Upon a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, the Lahore High Court held that the presence of the eye-witnesses was doubtful, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, the recoveries of weapons and crime empties were inconsequential, and deep-rooted enmity rendered false implication probable. The court further held that mere abscondence cannot remedy the defects in weak prosecution evidence or serve as conclusive proof of guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the appeal against the acquittal. The key legal principles laid down include the evaluation of ocular and medical consistency, the evidentiary value of withholding material witnesses, the dual nature of motive, and the limited probative value of abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Does abscondence by itself furnish conclusive proof of an accused person's guilt or merely serve as supporting evidence dependent on the facts of each case?
  • What is the legal effect when medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account in a murder trial?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when the prosecution withholds a material witness?
  • How does deep-rooted enmity between parties impact the assessment of testimony and the possibility of false implication in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →