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.

• Shoukat Ali vs (1) Nazar Hussain (2) The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtunnominated accuseddelayed FIRsuspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Shoukat Ali, against the dismissal of his bail plea by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi West in Sessions Case No.862 of 2009 arising out of FIR No.211 of 2009 registered under Section 302/324 PPC at Police Station SITE Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail where he was not nominated in the FIR, was implicated solely on suspicion after a delay of about 45 days through a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, and no direct or incriminating evidence linked him to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that upon tentative assessment, the prosecution case was not free from doubt and required further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail. The key principle laid down is that where reasonable doubt arises regarding the participation of an accused person in a crime, or where allegations are based on mere suspicion without direct or corroborative evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended and the accused ought not to be deprived of bail during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unnominated accused implicated on suspicion after a considerable delay is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of direct or corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case relies solely on statements recorded after a significant lapse of time without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali Hayat vs Govt of Punjab, Etc.2015 LHC 2011 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-10Read full judgment →
• SHOAtB Sultan vs The State2015 YLR 855 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-07
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controllack of incriminating evidenceSection 169 Cr.P.C.interim bailprosecution report
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from FIR No. 6 of 2014 registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, contending that the prosecution, after investigation, had filed a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, requesting his release due to a lack of incriminating evidence. The trial court had initially disapproved this report. The core legal question was whether the applicant should remain in custody when both the prosecution and the investigation officer maintained that no incriminating evidence existed against him, despite the trial court's earlier disapproval of the release report. The Court held that keeping the applicant in custody indefinitely, absent any incriminating evidence, was unjustified. The Court observed that the mere use of the applicant's license, which the prosecution acknowledged as a common market practice, did not constitute a criminal offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court granted interim post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the absence of evidence and the prosecution's own stance necessitated relief to prevent continued incarceration without legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant bail when the prosecution itself admits there is no incriminating evidence against the accused?
  • Does the mere use of an accused's license, acknowledged as common practice, constitute an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a fresh ground for bail be agitated in a subsequent application if it was not considered in an earlier dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Warsi vs (1) Federation of Pakistan (2) National AccountabilitySindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shoaib vs Sadia Altaf and 3 others2015 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-12Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Khan Akmal Khan and another The State vs The State The State2015 LHC 8007 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-08
  narcotic substancespossession of charascapital sentence referencesentencing discretionfirst offenderproportionality of sentencepolice witness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference concern the conviction of appellants Shoaib Khan and Fazal Khaliq for the possession of a large quantity of charas, an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants were apprehended while transporting over 200 kilograms of charas in a vehicle. The trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced Shoaib Khan to death and Fazal Khaliq to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and whether the death sentence imposed on Shoaib Khan was proportionate given the nature of the narcotic and the appellant's status as a first-time offender. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions, finding the prosecution evidence credible and consistent. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that while the statute prescribes severe penalties, the death penalty is not mandatory for charas possession, particularly for first-time offenders. Applying principles of judicial discretion and proportionality, the Court converted Shoaib Khan's death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing that lesser penalties are appropriate for non-lethal narcotics when the accused is not a hardened criminal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Does the possession of charas, as opposed to lethal narcotics like heroin, mandate the imposition of the death penalty for a first-time offender?
  • What criteria should a court apply when exercising its discretion to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib alias Saba vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-23
  post-arrest bailmedical evidence discrepancysupplementary statementprolonged detentionprivate criminal complaintmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging he fired at the deceased hitting the left eye. The Court examined the medical evidence, noting a significant discrepancy between the FIR's initial allegation and the post-mortem report, which indicated the injury was at the back of the head exiting through the right eyebrow. Although the complainant attempted to rectify this discrepancy via a supplementary statement and a private criminal complaint, the Court observed that these actions appeared to be a result of deliberation to align with medical findings. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated since March 2013 without trial in the State case, while simultaneously facing trial in a private complaint regarding the same occurrence. Holding that the attribution was inconsistent and the prolonged detention without trial was unjustified, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the discrepancy in the medical evidence and the delay in trial proceedings entitled the accused to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy between the FIR's initial allegation and the post-mortem report regarding the seat of injury constitute grounds for granting bail?
  • Can a supplementary statement made shortly after an FIR be viewed as a deliberate attempt to align the prosecution's case with medical evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when they have been detained for a prolonged period without the conclusion of the trial in the State case, while simultaneously facing trial in a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Sherin Zada and 8 others s vs The State and 4 others2015 MLD 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-04Read full judgment →
• Shereen Gul alias Fatima vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Islamabad, etcPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 3 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shereen Gul alias Fatima vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Islamabad and others2015 P Cr. L J 724 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-09
  re-examination of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.filling lacunajust decisioncriminal revisionAnti-Terrorism Courtransom
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Islamabad, which allowed the re-examination of a complainant witness under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner argued that the re-examination was an afterthought intended to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case, specifically regarding the involvement of the accused. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to recall a witness for further testimony when certain factual aspects, such as details of ransom payment, were omitted during the initial examination. The High Court upheld the impugned order, holding that the trial court acted within its mandate under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court determined that the recall was essential for a just decision of the case rather than an improper attempt to fill evidentiary gaps. The key principle established is that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, mandates the court to recall witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just conclusion, prioritizing adjudication on merits over technical objections.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recall of a witness under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to record omitted facts constitute an impermissible attempt to fill a lacuna in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a trial court empowered to recall a witness for re-examination if such evidence is deemed essential for a just decision of the case?
  • Does Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 empower a judge to put questions to witnesses to obtain proof of relevant facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Hussain vs Judge Family Court and others2015 LHC 3917 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-17Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Ahmad and others vs Yaseen & others2015 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 7 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-01-30
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationpunitive incarcerationmurdercriminal revisionbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected criminal revision petitions arising from an order passed by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaffarabad regarding bail in a murder case under Section 302/34, APC. The core legal questions involved whether bail granted to certain accused-respondents should be cancelled and whether bail should be refused to the remaining accused-petitioners. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that at the bail stage, deep scrutiny of evidence is not warranted, bail cannot be withheld or cancelled as a punishment, and the benefit of any doubt arising from delayed FIR registration and contradictory statements must go to the accused. The Court further noted that once bail is granted, strong and cogent reasons are required for its cancellation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complainant's revision petition seeking bail cancellation, while accepting the accused-petitioners' revision petition to grant them bail upon completion of investigation and submission of the challan, laying down principles regarding judicial discretion in bail matters and the prohibition of punitive incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted by a lower court can be cancelled without strong and cogent reasons?
  • Can bail be withheld or cancelled as a punishment?
  • Does the heinousness or gravity of an offence alone justify the refusal of bail?
  • Should the benefit of a doubt arising from contradictions in the FIR be extended to the accused at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheral vs Sajan alias Sajoo and othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sher Wali vs Haji Said Mehmood Khan2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Sher Umar Khan vs Khan Pur alias Khaney and 2 others2015 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-30
  appeal against acquittaldying declarationfitness of declarantdouble presumption of innocenceinterested witnessesbenefit of doubtmedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Topi, Swabi, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 PPC. The prosecution case relied primarily on a report made by the deceased while injured, treated as a dying declaration, along with ocular account evidence, motive, and recovery of weapons. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether an uncertified report recorded in a hospital in the absence of a Magistrate or independent witnesses can legally constitute a valid dying declaration, and whether the trial court's acquittal order called for interference. The Peshawar High Court held that because the Medical Officer failed to certify the deceased's fitness to make a statement, the report could not be treated as a dying declaration and lacked evidentiary weight without cross-examination. Furthermore, the ocular evidence was contradictory, unnatural, and discredited by physical and documentary evidence. Finding no perversity or misreading in the trial court's judgment, the High Court reaffirmed the double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded by police in a hospital be treated as a dying declaration without a medical certificate certifying the declarant's physical and mental fitness?
  • Does an uncertified police report by an injured victim carry higher evidentiary value than a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the standard of appellate review under Section 417 Cr.P.C. when reviewing a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to record the statement of an injured witness without a plausible explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Sulaiman vs DSP Babar Khan and 2 others2015 P Cr. L J 433 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2014-10-15
  private complaintsanction for prosecutionanti-terrorism courtjurisdiction transferpolice firingrevision petitiongood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition (converted into an appeal) challenges the order of the Special Judge-II, Anti-Terrorism Court Gilgit, which dismissed a private complaint filed against police officials for offences under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The complaint arose from an incident where police firing resulted in two deaths during a protest by lake affectees. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lacking sanction under section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and failing to attract anti-terrorism provisions. The core legal questions involved the requirement of statutory sanction for prosecuting public servants and the proper forum when terrorism provisions are inapplicable. The court held that while the acts did not constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Special Judge should not have outright dismissed the complaint but rather transferred it to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The court laid down that questions of good faith regarding police firing require judicial inquiry and that matters outside the Anti-Terrorism Court's domain must be transferred to ordinary courts rather than dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complaint under penal provisions should be dismissed outright or transferred to an ordinary court when anti-terrorism laws are not attracted?
  • Does the requirement of sanction under section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar the initiation of criminal proceedings against a public servant without judicial determination of good faith?
  • Can a revision petition against the dismissal of a complaint be converted into an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1619 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12
  criminal appealmurdersolitary testimonysudden flare-upmedical evidencebenefit of doubtalteration of convictioncoplaint testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the murder of the complainant's father following a sudden altercation. The core legal questions involve the sustainability of a conviction on the solitary testimony of an eye-witness, the effect of unproven motive and inconclusive recovery evidence, and whether the offense falls under section 302(b) or section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 given the absence of premeditation and the nature of the weapon used. The Lahore High Court held that the solitary ocular testimony of the complainant was credible and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellant's presence and overt acts, notwithstanding the acquittal of co-accused. However, because the motive was unproven, the incident occurred during a sudden flare-up without premeditation, and the weapon used was not inherently lethal, the court altered the conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principles laid down are that a conviction can be legally sustained on the solitary testimony of a reliable witness, and that a sudden fight without preplanning involving a non-lethal weapon attracts punishment under section 302(c) rather than section 302(b).

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction on a capital charge be sustained on the solitary testimony of an eye-witness?
  • Whether the unproven motive and discarded recovery evidence vitiate an otherwise reliable ocular account supported by medical evidence?
  • Does an unpremeditated attack committed during a sudden quarrel with a non-lethal weapon fall under section 302(b) or section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal merely because co-accused facing different allegations or role attribution have been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad etc. vs Mst. Fatima etc.2015 LHC 6975 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs The StateSindh High Court
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionlast seen evidencedeath penaltyanti-terrorismrapestrangulationrecovery of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction and death sentence imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for the abduction, rape, and murder of a five-year-old child. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, a judicial confession, and the recovery of incriminating items (a rope and clothing) at the appellant's instance. The Court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence, holding that the prosecution's evidence—specifically the judicial confession, the recovery of evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the medical evidence confirming sexual assault and strangulation—formed a complete chain of events proving guilt. The Court rejected the defense's claims of coercion regarding the confession and the plea of minority, noting the lack of evidence for the former and medical proof of adulthood for the latter. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when the prosecution proves its case beyond doubt in capital offenses, the Court is duty-bound to impose deterrent punishment unless mitigating circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession be relied upon if it is subsequently retracted by the accused?
  • Is the information furnished by an accused leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the failure to raise a plea of minority during the trial preclude the accused from claiming juvenile status on appeal?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who saw the deceased in the company of the accused shortly before the crime sufficient to establish a chain of circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Khan vs Baby Memoona2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Khan vs Baby Memoona, etc.2015 PLJ Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Baz Khan etc vs Additional District Judge & 3 others2015 LHC 5043 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs Syed Hameed Shah and others2015 YLR 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs Fayyaz and anothers2015 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-19
  juvenile offenderplea of juvenilityjurisdiction of trial courtage verificationossification reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life were set aside on the sole ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was allegedly a juvenile at the time of the offense under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court relied upon a school leaving certificate and CNIC at face value without due verification, and that the plea of juvenility was never raised during the trial. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on unverified documents without further inquiry into the accused's actual age. The Supreme Court held that reliance on unverified documents was unsafe and that further inquiry, including an ossification test and verification of documents, was required. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision after proper age verification.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court set aside a conviction on the ground of juvenility based on unverified documents without further inquiry?
  • Whether a plea of lack of jurisdiction due to being a juvenile can be raised for the first time without prior verification during trial?
  • Is an ossification test and medical board report necessary for determining the age of an accused claiming juvenility?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs Fayyaz and another2015 SCMR 955, 2015 P.S.C. Crl. 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-19
  juvenile justiceage determinationossification testjurisdiction of trial courtremanddocumentary evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of respondent No. 1 for an offense under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had acquitted the respondent on the sole ground that he was a 'child' under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 at the time of the crime, and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The High Court relied on a school leaving certificate and CNIC without verifying their authenticity. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent failed to raise the plea of being a juvenile throughout the trial proceedings. Holding that reliance on unverified documents was unsafe for overturning a conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing, with directions to the High Court to determine the respondent's age through a medical board's ossification report and to verify the authenticity of the documents produced, while granting the prosecution an opportunity to rebut the respondent's claim of juvenility.

  Questions settled

  • Can a high court set aside a conviction based on a claim of juvenility without verifying the authenticity of the documents supporting that claim?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to determine a defendant's age solely on the basis of a school leaving certificate and CNIC without further inquiry?
  • Should a plea regarding the lack of jurisdiction due to juvenile status be entertained if it was not raised during the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar vs Syed Hameed Shah & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Ajmal vs Fayyaz Rasool and 2 others2015 CLC 1014 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited, Karachi through Attorney vs Capital2015 PLD Islamabad 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-11
  advertisement feeregulatory feeCapital Development AuthorityNational Highway Authoritydelegation of powersconstitutional petitionfascia signboardsquid pro quo
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged demand notices for advertisement fees on business signboards issued by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the National Highway Authority (NHA). The core legal questions concerned the vires of the Islamabad (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, 1977, the legality of delegating fee collection to private contractors, and the NHA’s authority to levy fees on signboards on private premises. The Court held that the 1977 Regulations are valid and that the CDA may levy fees on fascia signboards, as these constitute regulatory charges rather than taxes. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the CDA may delegate the ministerial task of fee collection to private contractors without violating the principle of delegatus non potest delegare. However, the Court declared the NHA’s demand for fees on signboards located on private property along the building line of highways illegal, finding no statutory basis for such levies. The judgment establishes that regulatory fees are permissible where an authority regulates an obligatory duty, and that statutory bodies cannot impose levies without explicit legislative authorization.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Islamabad (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, 1977 ultra vires to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the Capital Development Authority delegate the ministerial function of collecting advertisement fees to a private contractor?
  • Does the National Highway Authority have the legal authority to impose fees on signboards displayed on private properties located on the building line of highways?
  • Is the distinction between a tax and a regulatory fee dependent on the principle of quid pro quo?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mubashar Irfan vs President of Pakistan, etc2015 LHC 7792 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Khalid Mehmood vs Station House Officer and 5 others2015 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 2013-07-31
  Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRcognizable offencewrit jurisdictioncriminal investigationestoppel in criminal law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-writ petitions arising from an order passed by the Justice of Peace, which directed the Station House Officer to record the statement of a complainant regarding the alleged murder of her son and proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the deceased had committed suicide, that the police had already recorded this version, and that the complainant's attempt to register a new case was barred by the rule of estoppel and motivated by a matrimonial dispute. The Court held that the Justice of Peace is duty-bound to direct the police to record information regarding a cognizable offence. It further held that factual disputes, such as whether a death was a suicide or a murder, cannot be resolved by the High Court in writ jurisdiction as this would prematurely throttle the investigation. The Court clarified that the rule of estoppel does not apply to criminal investigations, as the investigating agency has the duty to uncover the truth, even through subsequent statements. Consequently, the petition challenging the order was dismissed, and the order for registration of the statement was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of estoppel apply to criminal investigations or proceedings?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the cause of death in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the Justice of Peace duty-bound to direct the police to record a statement when information regarding a cognizable offence is presented?
  • Does the registration of a case based on a new version of events after an initial police report constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Bashir Ahmed vs Munir Ahmed Khan and others2015 YLR 1024 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-10Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Anwar Saeed vs L. D. a .2015 CLC 1723 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  property rightsdemolition of shopsconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsdue process of lawcompensation for acquired landLahore Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the President and General Secretary of a mosque challenging the demolition of its shops by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) for a development project. The core legal question concerned whether the state or its agencies can deprive individuals or religious institutions of property without due process of law and without the payment of due compensation, and whether subsequent events and promises made by authorities during proceedings can be factored into relief. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were lawfully entitled to compensation and alternate land, as property rights are constitutionally protected and cannot be arbitrarily infringed under the guise of public welfare without fulfilling legal obligations. The court laid down the principle that the executive is strictly bound by constitutional provisions protecting private property, and neither can citizens be arbitrarily dispossessed without compensation nor can government functionaries blow hot and cold by shifting stances. The petition was accepted with directions to the authorities to ensure the allotment of alternate land.

  Questions settled

  • Can the State deprive a citizen or religious institution of property without due process of law and adequate compensation?
  • Whether superior courts can take notice of subsequent events and undertakings given by government functionaries during the pendency of a writ petition?
  • Does an autonomous body functioning under government control remain responsible for compensating affectees whose properties were utilized for public welfare projects?
  • Can government functionaries take mutually contradictory stances regarding the entitlement of affectees to compensation or alternate land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Allah Bakhsh vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court2015 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2014-06-20
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksjudicial officerservice appealexpunctionmandatory counselingmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two service appeals filed by a Judicial Officer seeking the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the periods 2002 and 2004, following the rejection of his representations by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions were whether the adverse remarks were justified in the absence of prior counseling or warning, and whether the remarks were tainted by mala fide or based on factual misconceptions. The Service Tribunal held that the reporting officer failed to provide mandatory counseling or warning before recording adverse entries, rendering them unjustified. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the reporting officer’s assessment was subjective rather than objective and that the appellant had demonstrated a history of satisfactory performance, making the sudden negative characterization implausible. Regarding the 2004 ACR, the Tribunal concluded the remarks were based on a factual misconception regarding a 'superdari' order. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and ordered the expunction of the adverse remarks, establishing the principle that adverse entries in ACRs are invalid if mandatory counseling procedures are bypassed and if the assessment lacks objective basis.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory to provide counseling or warning to a civil servant before recording adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  • Can adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report be expunged if they are based on a factual misconception?
  • Does the absence of objective assessment by a reporting officer invalidate adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Aamar vs Superintending Engineer, 1st Provincial Building2015 LHC 1708, 2015 PLC 279 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-30
  writ jurisdictionalternate efficacious remedyworkmanindustrial disputetermination of serviceintra-court appeallabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition filed by an Air Conditioner Supervisor whose services were terminated by the respondent-department. The appellant sought regularization and challenged his termination, arguing that as a terminated employee, he was no longer a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thus had no remedy other than a writ petition. The respondent contended that the appellant, being a workman, could not invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy. The Court examined the distinction between the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It held that the appellant's grievance regarding termination did not constitute an 'industrial dispute' under the former, but fell squarely under the latter. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant had an available remedy under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Finding that the appellant failed to exhaust this alternate efficacious remedy, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the maintainability objection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of a workman's service constitute an 'industrial dispute' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can a workman invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction when an alternate remedy is available under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for a service termination grievance where the petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedy provided under Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Mustafa Anwar and others vs Government of Khyber2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Alam vs Secretary Housing & Physical Planning etc.2015 LHC 3488 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sheheryar Gul vs Mst. Sadaf Bibi2015 PLJ Peshawar 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• Shehbaz Latif vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat Lahore, etc.2015 KLR Criminal Cases 137, 2015 PLJ Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-07Read full judgment →
• Shazia Samad vs Malik Tariq Mehmood Akhtar and another2015 MLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-24Read full judgment →
• Shazeb Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. through Sultan Mehmood vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Finance Division, Islamabad and 4 others2015 PTD 1532 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-02
  sales tax exemptionpharmaceutical productsraw materialsstatutory interpretationdepartmental practicemaintainability of suitscustoms tariff
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court resolves suits concerning the interpretation and application of sales tax exemptions under S.R.O. 551(1)/2008. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of suits without exhausting departmental remedies, and whether low density polyethylene of pharmaceutical grade imported for manufacturing intravenous infusions qualifies as a "pharmaceutical product" exempt from sales tax under the said S.R.O. The Court held that the suits were maintainable because determining the true legal meaning of an exemption notification falls within the domain of the Court, and that the word "and" in the exemption notification must be read disjunctively as "or". Furthermore, the Court held that "pharmaceutical products" should not be restrictively limited to Chapter 30 of the Import Tariff and that the plaintiffs' manufactured goods fell within the scope of the exemption. The key principle laid down is that where an exemption notification does not expressly tie its terms to a specific import tariff chapter, its words must be interpreted on their own footing, and consistent departmental practice favoring the taxpayer carries substantial weight.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit challenging the interpretation and application of a sales tax exemption notification is maintainable without exhausting departmental remedies?
  • Whether the conjunctive word "and" in S.R.O. 551(1)/2008 regarding raw materials for pharmaceutical products is to be read disjunctively as "or"?
  • Whether the term "pharmaceutical products" in the sales tax exemption notification is strictly limited to goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Import Tariff?
  • Whether low density polyethylene of pharmaceutical grade imported for manufacturing intravenous infusions qualifies for sales tax exemption under S.R.O. 551(1)/2008?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Masih vs Mst. Farhat Parkash and others2015 SCMR 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-19
  custody of minorGuardianship Certificateex parte orderhabeas corpussection 491 CrPCcomplete justiceArticle 187(1)
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order passed under Section 491 Cr.P.C. transferring custody of a minor girl from her paternal grandfather to her real mother. The grandfather had previously obtained an ex parte Guardianship Certificate by concealing the fact that the mother was alive. Although the High Court ignored the existing Guardianship Certificate to award custody to the mother, the Supreme Court addressed the legal controversy regarding custody and the validity of the ex parte certificate obtained through misrepresentation. To avoid shuttling the minor during legal disputes and to ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court invoked Article 187(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court set aside the ex parte Guardianship Certificate, remanded the custody application back to the Guardian Judge for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties, and ordered that interim custody remain with the mother with visitation rights to be decided by the Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court set aside an ex parte Guardianship Certificate under Article 187(1) of the Constitution to do complete justice in a custody dispute?
  • Should interim custody of a minor girl remain with the real mother while a remanded guardianship application is re-decided on merits?
  • Can a Guardianship Certificate obtained by concealing the material fact that the minor's mother is alive be set aside for fresh adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan and Company vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, PeshawarPTCL 2015 CL.604 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan and Company through Shaukat Ali vs Commissioner InlandPTCL 2015 CL.604, 2015 PTD 630, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1023 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan and Company through Shaukat Ali vs Commissioner2015 PTD 630 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25
  Income Tax Ordinance 2001Presumptive Tax RegimeWithholding agentRetrospective effectTax turnoverPrescribed personTax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference concerns whether amendments to Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced via the Finance Act, 2011, regarding the definitions of "turnover" and "prescribed person," possess retrospective effect. The core legal question is whether these amendments, which expanded the scope of withholding agents, apply to the Tax Years 2010 and 2011. The Court held that the amendments are prospective and do not apply to the tax years in question, which concluded on June 30, 2010, and June 30, 2011. Consequently, the taxpayer did not qualify as a "prescribed person" under the law applicable at that time, as their receipts were subject to final tax discharge, thereby excluding them from the definition of "turnover" then in force. The key principle laid down is that taxing or penal provisions must be applied prospectively unless the legislature expressly mandates retrospective operation. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's order, rejecting the Appellate Tribunal's decision to treat the amendments as applicable to the prior tax years.

  Questions settled

  • Do amendments to the definition of 'turnover' in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced by the Finance Act, 2011, apply retrospectively to tax years ending before the amendment?
  • Is a taxpayer whose receipts are subject to final tax discharge considered a 'prescribed person' under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, prior to the 2011 amendments?
  • Does the imposition of an additional obligation to act as a withholding agent constitute a substantive change in law requiring prospective application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan & Co vs Commissioner Inland Revenue111 TAX 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain Awan Secretary Aj&K Bar Council, Muzaffarabad vs Aj&K Bar Council through Vice Chairman AJK Bar Council, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2015 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 463 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  bar councilterms and conditions of serviceup-gradationstatutory bodywrit jurisdictionprescribed mannerparity with Punjab
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed against a notification that withdrew certain pay scales and introduced self-styled grades for employees of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Bar Council. The core legal questions involved whether the Bar Council performs functions in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, whether the appellant was legally granted Grade B-20, and whether an autonomous statutory body can alter terms and conditions of its employees to their disadvantage. The Supreme Court held that the Bar Council is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, making a writ petition competent against it. However, the Court held that the up-gradation of the appellant to Grade B-20 was illegal as it failed to follow the mandatory prescribed procedure under the relevant rules and involved tampering with official records. The Court further laid down that while a statutory body has rule-making powers to alter terms and conditions, such powers must be exercised reasonably and in a judicious manner so as not to disadvantage employees below their previously held legitimate emoluments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for the purpose of writ jurisdiction?
  • Can an employee claim a legal right based on an up-gradation order or resolution not passed and notified in the prescribed statutory manner?
  • Whether an autonomous statutory body possesses the power to alter the terms and conditions of service of its employees?
  • Whether the alteration of terms and conditions of service by a statutory body can be made to the disadvantage of an employee below their legitimately earned emoluments?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1153 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-29
  murderbenefit of doubtwajj takkarextra-judicial confessionbelated FIRunwitnessed occurrencecapital sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, convicting the appellant under sections 302(b) and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased. The prosecution case rested on a belated FIR naming an unknown assailant, subsequent identification through 'wajj takkar' evidence, an extra-judicial confession, an alleged motive of illicit relations, and weapon recovery. Upon hearing the appeal, the Lahore High Court examined the evidence and found the occurrence to be unwitnessed, the 'wajj takkar' and extra-judicial confession uncorroborated and manufactured, the motive unproved, and the weapon recovery doubtful. The core legal question addressed was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that multiple suspicious circumstances and material contradictions undermined the prosecution's case. The key legal principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained and considerable delay in reporting an FIR during a night-time occurrence render the prosecution version doubtful and indicate an unwitnessed crime?
  • Can an accused be legally convicted solely on uncorroborated 'wajj takkar' evidence originating from a chance witness at a considerable distance?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession made to close relatives days after the incident?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt and acquit an accused in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Aziz and another vs Ansar Ali and another2015 P Cr. L J 134 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-04-18
  statutory bailtrial delayhardened criminaldesperate criminaldangerous criminalbail cancellationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Shariat Court order granting bail to an accused charged with murder under the Azad Penal Code, following a trial delay exceeding two years and five months. The core legal question was whether the accused, despite the statutory delay, should be denied bail on the grounds of being a "hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal" under the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the bail, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the accused met the criteria for the stated exceptions. The Court established that determining such status requires assessing three factors: the accused's previous record, the nature of the accusation and conduct, and the presence of brutality or acts creating public insecurity. The Court clarified that the mere commission of a heinous offence does not automatically classify an accused as a hardened criminal. Consequently, as the trial delay was not attributable to the accused, the statutory right to bail remained enforceable, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere commission of a heinous offence automatically classify an accused as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal for the purposes of bail?
  • What factors must a court consider when determining if an accused qualifies as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if the trial is not concluded within the statutory period and the delay is not attributable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Sh. M. Bashir (deceased) through his LRS etc2015 LHC 703 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Managing Director Ktwma/DCO, Kasur and 2 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 782 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-18
  master and servantstatutory ruleswrit jurisdictionservice matternon-statutory regulationsreinstatementmaintainability of writ petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition as non-maintainable. The appellant, an employee of the Kasur Tannery Waste Management Agency (KTWMA), sought reinstatement following the termination of his services. The core legal question was whether the appellant's service terms were governed by statutory rules, thereby permitting a writ petition, or by the principle of master and servant. The Court held that the Kasur Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008, under which the appellant was employed, were not statutory because they were framed by the Authority without government approval or official gazette notification. Consequently, the Court ruled that the relationship was governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering the writ petition incompetent. The judgment affirmed that for regulations to be statutory, they must be framed under a statute, require government approval, and be notified in the official gazette. Furthermore, the mere adoption of government rules by reference does not confer statutory status upon an organization's internal regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Are regulations framed by an authority without government approval or gazette notification considered statutory rules?
  • Does the adoption of government rules by reference in an organization's internal regulations confer statutory status upon those regulations?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the reinstatement of an employee whose services are governed by non-statutory rules?
  • What are the determining factors for classifying an organization's rules or regulations as statutory?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Additional Rent Controller, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 405, 2015 C.L.R. 513 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Additional Rent Controller etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali etc. vs Province of Punjab Etc.2015 LHC 1813 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-15Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Billa vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-26
  narcotics controlchemical examiner reportamalgamation of samplesreduction of sentencedeath sentence commutedrecovery of charascriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the dismissal of his criminal appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentence of death for the alleged recovery of 200 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the conviction and sentence could be sustained when samples were amalgamated instead of being sent separately, rendering the chemical examiner's report applicable only to a reduced quantity in light of precedent. The Supreme Court held that following the principle in Ameer Zeb v. The State, recovery could only be proved to the extent of 10 kilograms where samples were amalgamated from multiple packets. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone exceeding 14 years, and ordered the appellant's release. The key principle laid down is that where narcotic samples are amalgamated from multiple packets rather than tested individually, the conviction can only safely rest on the reduced verifiable quantity, affecting the mandatory minimum sentencing threshold.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on a narcotics conviction when samples taken from multiple recovered packets are amalgamated into single parcels for chemical examination?
  • Can a death sentence for narcotics possession be reduced to the term already undergone when the proved quantity of recovered Charas does not exceed ten kilograms?
  • Whether the failure to send separate samples from each recovered packet restricts the conviction to a lesser quantity under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali and others vs Mst. Haleema Bibi and others2015 YLR 922 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali and 3 others vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-23
  compromisecompoundable offencesmurderacquittalminor legal heirsdeath sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals and a murder reference challenging the trial court's judgment whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and murderous assault, alongside a criminal revision seeking sentence enhancement. During the proceedings, an application was filed seeking acquittal on the basis of a compromise between the appellants, the legal heirs of the deceased, and the injured prosecution witnesses. The core legal question concerned the acceptance of a compromise in compoundable criminal offences and the lawful safeguarding of the interests of minor legal heirs. The court held that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and lawfully executed, and that the financial interests of the minor heirs were sufficiently protected through the purchase of Defence Saving Certificates. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal convictions for murder and assault be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • How should the financial interests of minor legal heirs be safeguarded during a compromise involving Diyat and Qisas?
  • Whether an appellate court can acquit appellants of murder charges upon verification of a genuine and voluntary compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali and 2 others Muhammad Yasin vs The State Shaukat Ali and 32015 LHC 6911 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictionbelated statementdishonest improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 449, 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the ocular account, contradictions between medical and oral evidence, belated statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with glaring improvements, material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, unexplained delays in recording statements, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The court established that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, the appellants were acquitted, and the revision for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence of an eyewitness who makes dishonest improvements and material discrepancies at the trial stage can be relied upon for conviction?
  • Does a belatedly recorded statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a valid explanation lose its legal value?
  • What is the effect of a major contradiction between the ocular testimony regarding firearm injuries and the medical evidence showing bullet wounds?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali alias Shaku vs The State and another2015 YLR 2611 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-24
  suspension of sentenceSection 426 Cr.P.C.leave to appealreappraisal of evidencelife imprisonmentbail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426(2-b), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner following a conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the sentence should be suspended pending the final outcome of an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had already granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the application should be allowed. The ratio of the decision is that when the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal based on contentions requiring a reappraisal of evidence—specifically regarding the nocturnal timing of the incident, the location of the occurrence, and unexplained injuries sustained by the accused—a prima facie case for suspension of sentence is established. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that such circumstances, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case, justify the suspension of execution of sentence to secure the interests of justice pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court constitute a sufficient ground for the suspension of a sentence under Section 426(2-b), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be suspended pending the final decision of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the existence of unexplained injuries on the accused in a murder case provide a basis for the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali alias Billa vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 130, 2015 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-26
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actsection 9(c) CNSACharas recoveryChemical Examiner reportsampling protocolamalgamation of samplessentence reductionsentence undergone
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after 200 kilograms of Charas (200 packets) were allegedly recovered from his house. The High Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether representative sampling via amalgamation of 1 gram from each packet into 10 composite samples complied with standard chemical examination procedures to sustain conviction for the entire recovered quantity. Relying on its precedent in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), the Supreme Court held that separate samples must be drawn and tested from each packet. Because only 10 composite samples were prepared and sent for chemical testing, the recovery was legally proven only to the extent of 10 kilograms. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the conviction to 10 kilograms, converted the death sentence to the sentence already undergone (over 14 years), and ordered the appellant's immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on the proven quantity of narcotics when individual samples are not drawn from each recovered packet but are instead amalgamated into composite samples?
  • Can a convict be sentenced to life imprisonment or death under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 if the chemical examiner report legally proves recovery of no more than 10 kilograms of Charas?
  • Whether the sentence of a convict under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be reduced to the period already undergone if he has served more than 14 years in jail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali (deceased) through his Legal Heirs and others vs Province2015 LHC 1813, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1269 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sharifuddin vs The State2015 YLR 1791 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-09
  post-arrest bailrecovery of looted articlescrime weaponon-the-spot arrestmala fide of policeexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving robbery and assault, registered under Sections 392, 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant was apprehended at the scene of the crime by police, with the looted articles and the crime weapon recovered from his possession. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the recovery of incriminating material and the direct connection established at the scene, despite allegations of police mala fide regarding the non-arrest of a co-accused. The Court held that the applicant was directly connected to the crime, and the recovery of looted items and the weapon from his possession at the spot constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court emphasized that alleged police mala fide regarding the co-accused does not benefit the applicant when his own involvement is prima facie established. The Court distinguished the cited precedents and dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the examination of material witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the alleged mala fide of police in failing to arrest a co-accused entitle the applicant to bail when the applicant was arrested on the spot with looted articles?
  • Should bail be granted when the accused is directly connected to the crime through the recovery of looted items and the crime weapon?
  • Can a trial court be directed to expedite the examination of material witnesses in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif Khan vs Akbar Zaman2015 NLR Civil 563 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shariat Court (Aj&K)J Mst. Mazloom Bibi vs Muhammad Ajaz Awan and another2015 YLR 2533 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-06-29
  recovery of dowerfamily courtagreement deedNikahnamaconsummation of marriagemisreading of evidenceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Family Court dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of dower for want of proof. The core legal question concerns whether the dower, agreed upon in a pre-marriage agreement deed and recorded in the Nikahnama, was actually paid by the husband, and whether the appellant was entitled to its recovery following divorce. The Shariat Court held that the Family Court misread the evidence and failed to consider the agreement deed and Nikahnama in juxtaposition, ignoring material contradictions in the respondents' statements regarding payment and their admission of executing the agreement. The Court ruled that the dower remained unpaid and that upon consummation of marriage, the wife was entitled to full dower. The key principle laid down is that where an agreement deed forms the basis of a Nikah and is admitted by the husband, oral claims of prior payment without documentary proof cannot defeat the wife's right to recovery of unpaid dower upon dissolution of marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court can dismiss a suit for recovery of dower without properly evaluating pre-nuptial agreement deeds in juxtaposition with the Nikahnama?
  • Is a husband bound to pay full dower to his wife upon consummation of the marriage?
  • Whether oral assertions of dower payment without corroborative documentary proof can override a written agreement and Nikahnama?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat vs Addl. Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace & others2015 LHC 2661 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sharafat vs Additional Seessions Judge/Justice of Peace and others2015 LHC 2661, 2015 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-12
  illegal kidney removalTransplantation of Human Organs and Tissues ActJustice of Peacecognizance of offencespecial law procedureaggrieved personwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the police to proceed against the petitioner regarding allegations of illegal kidney removal. The complainant, the employer of the victim, sought police action for the alleged unauthorized surgery performed on his servant. The petitioner argued that the Justice of Peace failed to consider the specific procedure mandated by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 2010, and that the complainant lacked standing. The Court held that the alleged offence falls under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 2010, which prescribes a specific procedure for cognizance of offences. The Court emphasized that cognizance under this special law can only be taken upon a complaint by the Monitoring Authority or an aggrieved person who has provided the requisite fifteen-day notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the application was not maintainable. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, that procedure must be strictly followed, and failure to do so renders the action illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 2010 prescribe a specific procedure for the cognizance of offences?
  • Can a Justice of Peace direct police action for an offence governed by a special law without regard to the procedural requirements of that law?
  • Who is authorized to file a complaint for an offence under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 2010?
  • Is an employer a competent complainant for an offence of organ removal allegedly committed against their servant under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat and anothers vs Umer Hayat and another2015 MLD 216 · Sindh High Court · 2013-09-11Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs T.M.O., etc2015 C.L.R. 1259 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shan vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 747 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-22
  post-arrest bailunlicensed pistolrecovery witnessesindependent mashirsSindh Arms Actfurther inquiryprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Shan seeking enlargement on bail after his earlier application was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Karachi. The applicant was arrested on 4-7-2014 by police officials at a busy bus stop in Korangi, Karachi, and allegedly found in possession of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol loaded with three bullets. The core legal question was whether the non-association of independent public witnesses during the recovery of arms from a thickly populated area renders the prosecution's case questionable, and whether section 34 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 completely dispenses with the requirement of associating private mashirs despite the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that section 34 of the Sindh Arms Act does not expressly bar private witnesses and that police are still bound to associate independent witnesses from the public if available, failing which a plausible explanation must be provided to ensure transparency. Finding no valid explanation for the absence of private mashirs and noting that the applicant had no prior criminal record, investigation was complete, and the case fell for further inquiry, the court granted post-arrest bail under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 34 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013 completely excludes the necessity of associating private persons as recovery witnesses?
  • Is it mandatory for the police to provide a plausible explanation for not associating independent public witnesses when a recovery is made from a thickly populated area?
  • Does the non-association of private mashirs during a search under the Sindh Arms Act 2013 create grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can police officials alone act as valid recovery witnesses under the Sindh Arms Act 2013 without attempting to involve available public members?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsullah vs The State and 2 others2015 YLR 2642 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-03
  murderdeath sentencerelated witnesssingle eyewitness testimonyabscondencemotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his first cousin and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of a single, closely related eyewitness, supported by medical evidence, prompt FIR registration, motive, and prolonged abscondence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and answered the Murder Reference in the affirmative, holding that the testimony of a related eyewitness, when natural, cogent, and unimpeached, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration, and that minor discrepancies do not damage a credible prosecution case. The key principles established are that substitution of a real culprit by a close relative is a rare phenomenon in cases involving a single accused, that quality of evidence prevails over quantity, and that prolonged unexplained abscondence strongly corroborates guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased can form the sole basis for a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can prolonged and unexplained abscondence of an accused after the commission of an offense be used as circumstantial evidence to corroborate the prosecution's case?
  • Does the presence of minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of an otherwise credible ocular account?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive behind a crime is fatal to its case when the direct ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali and another vs Allah Bakhsh2015 CLC 488 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-24
  suit for possessionpart performanceagreement to sellreferee statementlimitation periodspecific performancecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for possession filed by the respondent was decreed and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to protection of possession under an agreement to sell pursuant to section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the legal effect of a statement made by a sole referee appointed during trial. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioners initially obtained possession under part performance of a contract, the protection under section 53-A is not available indefinitely and lapses if the promisee fails to take positive steps or file a suit for specific performance within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the court held that a referee can only furnish information on matters of fact referred to them and cannot decide the dispute like an arbitrator. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defendant can claim perpetual protection of possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 without filing a suit for specific performance within the period of limitation?
  • Can a referee appointed by the court decide a matter as an arbitrator and make an award beyond furnishing factual information?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract where a date is fixed for performance or upon refusal by the promisor?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshair Ali vs Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) & City Survey Officer Distt2015 PLJ Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-05Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Alam Shah vs SHO P.S Takht Bhai etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-08Read full judgment →
• Shamsar Hussain vs State and another2015 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 81 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shamim Bibi vs D.C.O. Dera Ghazi Khan and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-18Read full judgment →
• Shamil Bank of Bahrain E.C. vs Mian Ayaz Anwar and 6 others2015 CLD 893 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-19
  Banking Court jurisdictionFinancial InstitutionForeign banking companyForeign arbitral awardRecovery of financesState Bank of Pakistan licensePlaint return
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of a Banking Court returning a plaint for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether a foreign banking company, not licensed by the State Bank of Pakistan, qualifies as a "Financial Institution" under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and whether a Banking Court possesses jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award. The Court held that the appellant did not qualify as a "Financial Institution" because it lacked the requisite license from the State Bank of Pakistan and the underlying transaction occurred outside Pakistan. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Banking Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce foreign arbitral awards, as the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, contains no provision for such proceedings. The judgment establishes that to qualify as a "Financial Institution" under the Ordinance, a company must transact business in Pakistan under a license from the State Bank of Pakistan, and that the specialized jurisdiction of Banking Courts is strictly confined to the recovery matters prescribed by the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign banking company not licensed by the State Bank of Pakistan qualify as a 'Financial Institution' under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a Banking Court exercise jurisdiction over a suit based on a foreign arbitral award under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is a transaction conducted entirely outside Pakistan by a foreign bank sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a Banking Court in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Shameem Haider etc vs Mehr Ali2015 LHC 6418 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
• (1) Shaman @ Shaman, Ghulam Nabi @ Rato, Moula Bux @ Moulo andSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealdacoityocular evidencebenefit of doubtrecovery evidenceacquittalinjured witnessmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for offences including dacoity and house-trespass. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt when the primary eyewitnesses, including the injured victim, failed to identify the accused or support the complainant's version of events during the trial. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the ocular evidence was contradictory and the star witnesses negated the complainant's testimony. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that substantive evidence is the statement recorded during trial, which is subject to cross-examination. Furthermore, it establishes that recovery evidence is merely corroborative and insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct evidence. The Court emphasized that a single reasonable dent in the prosecution's case is sufficient to create doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, as the system of criminal justice demands the benefit of doubt be given to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on recovery evidence when the direct ocular evidence has failed?
  • Does the failure of an injured witness to identify the accused in court entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a single reasonable dent in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does the substantive evidence of a witness consist of their statement recorded during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shama Norin & others vs Karachi Transport Corporation & others,Sindh High Court · -
  fatal accidentlaw of tortsvicarious liabilitynegligent drivingcompensation and damagesburden of prooftraffic accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for recovery of compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 filed by the legal heirs of a deceased person who lost his life in a traffic accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a bus. The core legal questions revolved around whether the death was the result of the defendant's negligence, whether the employer and owner of the vehicle were jointly and severally liable under vicarious liability, and how to determine the quantum of damages. The Sindh High Court held that where an accident and resulting death are admitted or established and the defendants lead no evidence in rebuttal, the burden shifts to the defendants to disprove negligence, and failure to do so warrants an adverse inference. The court established that the owner and employer are vicariously liable for the tortious acts of their driver committed during the course of employment. The court laid down the principles for calculating pecuniary benefits based on life expectancy, minimum wages, and deductions for personal expenses, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof shifts to the defendant in a fatal accident suit when the happening of the accident and the death are not disputed?
  • Is an employer jointly and severally liable for a fatal traffic accident caused by the negligence of their employee acting in the course of employment?
  • Whether high speed is a mandatory prerequisite to establish negligence in a road accident involving a heavy vehicle?
  • How should the quantum of compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits be calculated under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• Shama Khan Zafar vs District Coordination Officer, Lodhran etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 45 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shal Muhammad vs The State2015 YLR 2413 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shakirullah Khan vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ullah Khan and anothers vs Khyber Medical University through Registrar and another2015 YLR 2488 · Peshawar High Court
  medical educationacademic promotionPM&DC regulationsinterim injunctionjudicial restraintstudent eligibilitycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, medical students who failed their 3rd Professional MBBS examination, sought a declaration to appear in the 4th Professional (Final Year) MBBS examination. The trial court dismissed their suit, holding that they were ineligible for promotion to the next class under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) rules, which mandate passing all subjects of the previous class before promotion. The appellate court upheld this decision, refusing relief to students who had not cleared the 3rd Professional examination. The petitioners filed a revision petition, arguing they should be permitted to appear in the 4th Professional exam. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that students cannot be promoted to higher classes without passing all subjects of the previous class. The Court emphasized that academic discipline must be strictly maintained and that judicial leniency cannot override established institutional rules. Furthermore, the Court cautioned trial courts against issuing directions on policy matters, which fall outside their judicial domain, and ordered the trial court to conclude the main suit within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical student be promoted to a higher class without passing all subjects of the previous class?
  • Do trial courts have the authority to issue directions regarding the policy matters of educational institutions?
  • Is a student who has failed the 3rd Professional MBBS examination entitled to appear in the 4th Professional examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel vs University of Malakand through Vice-Chancellor and 52015 MLD 1295 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shakeel vs University of Malakand etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Sardar Awan and another vs Election Appellate Authority, Tehsil Gujranwala (City) and others2016 PLJ SC 321, 2016 P.S.C. 617, 2015-SCP-157, 2016 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-09
  local government electionscandidate disqualificationnomination papersstatutory bodypre-election scrutinyelection tribunalfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions challenging the eligibility of candidates for local government elections, specifically regarding their disqualification for holding the office of Chairman, District Bait-ul-Mal, and the validity of submitting multiple nomination papers. The core legal questions were whether the position of Chairman, District Bait-ul-Mal constitutes "service" under the disqualification criteria of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, and whether the submission of five nomination papers violates election rules. The Court held that the position of Chairman, District Bait-ul-Mal is a voluntary, non-remunerated social service, not constituting "service of a statutory body" under section 27(2)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that submitting five nomination papers is expressly permitted by Rule 12(6) of the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013. The key principle laid down is that pre-election disqualification via summary inquiry is improper unless the disqualification is patent; complex factual disputes regarding eligibility should be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal post-election. Additionally, in cases of statutory ambiguity, interpretations favoring the candidate’s fundamental right to contest should be preferred.

  Questions settled

  • Does holding the position of Chairman of a District Bait-ul-Mal constitute a disqualification for contesting local government elections under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Is a candidate permitted to submit five nomination papers for a seat in the same constituency under the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013?
  • Can a Returning Officer determine a candidate's disqualification through a summary inquiry at the pre-election stage?
  • Does the definition of 'service' in the context of disqualification for local government candidates include voluntary, non-remunerated positions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel and 4 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 41 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-13
  suspension of sentencestatutory grounddelayed appealpost-conviction baillife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a second petition for the suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the petitioner Sajid, seeking release on bail pending his substantive appeal against conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail on statutory grounds under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the delayed fixation and hearing of his appeal. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had served a substantial period of imprisonment exceeding three years, his appeal had not been fixed for hearing through no fault of his own, and he was not a previous convict or a hardened criminal, he met the statutory requirements for the suspension of his sentence. The court laid down the principle that under the relevant provisions of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a convicted person whose appeal is not decided within the statutory timeframe without fault on their part is entitled to have their sentence suspended.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convict is entitled to suspension of sentence on statutory grounds when an appeal is not fixed for hearing within a reasonable period?
  • Can a prisoner seeking suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted bail if he is not a previous convict or hardened criminal?
  • Does delay in the decision of an appeal not occasioned by the appellant form a valid ground for suspension of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Aijaz vs Mst. Shakeela Naseem& othersSindh High Court · -
  administration suitrejection of plainttemporary injunctiondeposit of moneygift deedinheritancestranger to estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses two applications filed by the plaintiff in a civil suit: one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a temporary stay and injunction, and another under Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the deposit of sale proceeds of certain properties with the Nazir of the court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an administration suit that includes claims involving strangers and properties not held by the deceased at the time of death, as well as the scope of Order 39 Rule 10 regarding immovable property and admissions. The court held that an administration suit cannot encompass claims affecting strangers or properties alienated prior to death where registered instruments are involved, and that Order 39 Rule 10 is inapplicable to immovable property or in the absence of a clear admission of holding money as a trustee. Consequently, the court dismissed the stay and deposit applications and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administration suit can include claims and reliefs against persons who are strangers to the estate of the deceased?
  • Does Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to immovable property or only to money or things capable of delivery?
  • Can an application under Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be sustained in the absence of a clear admission by the possessor holding as a trustee?
  • When should a plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for being outside the scope of an administration suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Buriro vs Mst. Kausar Parveen & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs Government2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shaista Nawaz. vs Govt. of Punjab through Secretary Schools Education2015 LHC 3025 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-18Read full judgment →
• Shaista Nawaz vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Schools Education Department, Punjab, Lahore, and 5 others2015 LHC 3025, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1178 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shaikh Wajahat Ali vs not2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Shafiuddin Qureshi and Syed Asif Ali Zaidi vs (1) Muhammad SaalimSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Nadeem vs NotSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Gulzar vs Muhammad Shawaal and 6 others2015 C.L.R. 256, 2015 MLD 809 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-10-23
  adverse possessionlimitation actaccrued rightsgeneral clauses actinterim constitution actdeclaratory suitevacuee propertyinterpretation of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge Dheerkot, which had set aside the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction based on adverse possession and an agreement dated 21-10-1971. The core legal question was whether a decree for adverse possession could be granted in a suit instituted after the repeal of the law relating to adverse possession, and whether such a right could be saved as an accrued right under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or Section 56-C of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The High Court held that since the suit was filed in 2005—long after the repeal of the law of adverse possession through Ordinance LIV of 1996 and Act IV of 1997—no decree on the basis of adverse possession could be passed, as the doctrine itself had been declared un-Islamic and ceased to have effect. The appellate court erred in invoking accrued rights, because the law was not in force at the time of the suit's institution. The appeal was accepted, the first appellate court's judgment was vacated, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for adverse possession be granted in a suit instituted after the repeal of Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the repeal of the law relating to adverse possession affect rights allegedly accrued prior to the repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  • How should an agreement concerning possession of evacuee property be interpreted when its plain wording grants a right to possession rather than ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Gulzar vs Mohammad Shawaal and 6 others2015 C.L.R. 256 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-10-23
  adverse possessionevacuee propertydeclaratory suitlimitation actgeneral clauses actinterpretation of documentspossession and ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Dheerkot, which had set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration based on adverse possession and alternative perpetual injunction. The core legal questions involved whether a decree for adverse possession could be validly granted after the repeal of the law relating to adverse possession, and how to interpret the underlying agreement regarding possession and ownership. The High Court held that since Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, relating to adverse possession, had ceased to have effect following declarations of repugnancy to Islam and subsequent statutory repeal before the institution of the suit, no decree on the basis of adverse possession could be passed or sustained. Furthermore, the court held that the agreement in question conveyed only permissive possession rather than ownership of evacuee property. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the first appellate court's judgment was vacated, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree for adverse possession can be passed after the repeal of the law relating to adverse possession?
  • Can a right of adverse possession be claimed as an accrued right under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or Section 56-C of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, if the suit is filed after the repeal?
  • How should an agreement regarding land possession be interpreted in light of its plain terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Muhammad vs Muhammad Afzal Chundrigar2015 YLR 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Baloch vs The State2015 YLR 2484 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-20
  Criminal AppealAcquittalEvidentiary LacunaeRecovery of WeaponsInherent PowersPolice HighhandednessBurden of Proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under sections 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged firing incident upon police personnel. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps and the appellant's defense. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce the alleged recovery weapons in court, the absence of police station departure and arrival entries, and the failure to produce the Mashirnama of the incident site constituted fatal lacunae. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to challenge the appellant's version of events during cross-examination, effectively admitting the defense's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. Additionally, invoking its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court extended the acquittal to the co-accused. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where the prosecution fails to substantiate its case through essential evidence and fails to rebut the defense's plausible narrative, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce alleged recovery weapons in court entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit a co-accused who has not filed an appeal?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution failing to challenge the defense's version of events during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Aslam, etc. vs Province of Punjab, etc.2015 LHC 6775 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-13Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Asghar Gondal. vs The State & another.2015 LHC 5865 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01
  pre-arrest bailillegal gateway exchangeelectronic transactionstelecommunication offenceVOIPcyber crimebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition has been filed by Shahzad Asghar Gondal seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 76 dated 16.10.2014 registered under Sections 36 and 37 of the Electronic Transaction Ordinance 2002, Section 31(1) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996, and Sections 420 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Cyber Crime Circle, NRBC, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail for operating an illegal gateway exchange causing loss to the national exchequer and posing security threats. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is nominated in the timely-registered FIR, absconded during the raid, and forensic analysis confirmed his laptop was used for illegal VOIP operations. Finding no mala fide on the part of the investigating agency and noting that the offences are non-bailable and further investigation is required, the court dismissed the petition and recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and is not granted unless mala fide, enmity, or absence of an offence is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is nominated in the FIR and connected through forensic evidence to an illegal gateway exchange?
  • Are offences under Sections 36 and 37 of the Electronic Transaction Ordinance 2002 bailable?
  • Under what circumstances can the extraordinary jurisdiction for granting pre-arrest bail be invoked?
  • Does the necessity of joining further investigation preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →