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.

• Shahzad Ali vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-03
  unsoundness of mindfitness to stand trialmedical boardframing of chargerevision petitiondouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner assailed the legality of trial court proceedings whereby a charge of double murder was framed against him and his co-accused. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's plea of unsoundness of mind and the admissibility of successive medical reports regarding his fitness to stand trial. The Lahore High Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable against the proceedings as no cause of action accrued, and found that the plea of unsoundness of mind was raised at a belated stage without supporting medical proof of prior treatment. The court ruled that the trial court rightly sought a properly signed medical board report after the initial report was found defective and incomplete. The key principle laid down is that unsubstantiated and belated pleas of unsoundness of mind raised without contemporaneous medical proof do not bar criminal trial proceedings when a duly constituted medical board certifies the accused to be fit to stand trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings relating to the framing of a charge can be assailed through a revision petition when the accused has been declared fit to stand trial by a medical board?
  • Can a plea of unsoundness of mind raised at a belated stage without contemporaneous medical proof of prior treatment be entertained to halt criminal proceedings?
  • What is the legal validity of an incomplete medical board report not signed by all its members?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ali and others vs Raees Khadim Hussain and 2 others2015 PLJ Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
• Shahrez Abdullah Khan Rokhri through Traffic Manager vs Superintendent of Police, Civil Line, Lahore and 7 others2015 PLC 155 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-22
  constitutional petitionpayment of wagesrecovery of arrearswarrants of arrestemployer liabilityland revenue recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the warrants of arrest issued by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector for the recovery of an amount determined by the Commissioner Compensation/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The petitioner contends that he is neither the chairman, a shareholder, nor a director of the company against which the liability was determined, and that the warrants were issued without proper inquiry into ownership. The core legal question concerns the true construction of the term 'employer' and the proper identification of persons responsible for wage payments against whom recovery orders can be enforced under the Act. The court held that recovery proceedings and warrants of arrest cannot be initiated against an individual without first determining, as a matter of fact, whether they are the employer or the person responsible for payment under sections 3 and 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The key principle laid down is that the recovering authority must conduct a threshold inquiry regarding the current ownership and identity of the responsible person before executing recovery as arrears of land revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Who is considered the employer or person responsible for the payment of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Can recovery proceedings and warrants of arrest be initiated against an individual without determining their status as a shareholder or director of the liable company?
  • What is the statutory mechanism for recovering amounts directed to be paid under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz and Lohano vs NotSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz alias Shahid Ali vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actcharaschemical examiner reportsampling of narcoticsreduction of sentencesentencing policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge (Narcotics), Dadu, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine for possession of 1010 grams of charas. The core legal issue pertained to the determination of the appropriate sentence where the recovered narcotic consisted of two slabs ('patties') of charas, but a sample for chemical examination was extracted from only one slab. The High Court observed that since only a 10-gram sample was drawn from one of the two equal slabs (each roughly 500 grams), the appellant could only be held liable for the tested portion, not the entire recovered quantity. Relying on binding sentencing guidelines approved by the Supreme Court, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year and six months' rigorous imprisonment, with a reduction in fine, while keeping intact the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be held liable for the entire quantity of recovered narcotics when representative samples are drawn and sent for chemical examination from only one of multiple separate slabs or pieces?
  • What is the appropriate standard sentence under the sentencing guidelines for possession of charas exceeding 300 grams up to 600 grams?
  • Whether a positive chemical analysis report for a sample drawn from a single piece of contraband can substantiate a conviction for the untested portion of the recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz alias Chullu vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 414 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-20
  post-arrest bailattempted rapefurther inquiryabscondancepresumption of innocencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempted rape. The core legal questions were whether the provisions of Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were applicable given the allegations in the FIR, and whether the accused's prior abscondance and involvement in other criminal cases precluded the grant of bail. The Court held that the allegations did not prima facie constitute the offence of rape as defined under Section 375, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as penetration was not alleged. Furthermore, the Court determined that the complainant's exoneration of a co-accused cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. The Court established that bail cannot be refused solely on the grounds of abscondance if the accused makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, nor can it be denied based on pending criminal cases where no conviction has been secured, as the presumption of innocence prevails until conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an allegation of penetration preclude the application of Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground that an accused remained a fugitive from law if a case for further inquiry is established?
  • Is an accused person disentitled to bail merely because other criminal cases are registered against them in the absence of a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz & others vs State and others2015 PLJ FSC 6 · Federal Shariat Court
  qatl-e-amdbenefit of doubtdestruction of evidenceocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant contradictions in ocular and medical evidence and the inconsistent acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution’s case was inherently weak, improbable, and riddled with unexplained delays and discrepancies. The medical evidence failed to corroborate the prosecution's theory regarding the alleged Zina and the cause of death, while the recovery of weapons was not linked to the crime. The Court emphasized that the conviction of one accused while acquitting others on the same evidence was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, holding that findings of guilt must rest firmly on evidence rather than surmises or conjectures. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is pregnant with serious doubts and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder when the prosecution's ocular evidence is contradicted by medical findings?
  • Is a conviction under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove the underlying murder?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have been acquitted?
  • Does the failure to prove the motive for a crime weaken the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahjahan Kiani, Budget Superintendent Finance Department, AJK and another vs Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 4 others2015 PLJ AJ&K 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  writ petitionpromotionSelection Boardjurisdiction barService Tribunalvacant postill-gotten gainsRules of Business
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition was filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 challenging an order dated 08.06.2007 that rescinded previous Selection Board recommendations dated 11.12.2006 for the promotion of petitioners to the posts of Budget Officer (B-17) and Budget Superintendent (B-16). The petitioners sought directions to enforce the original recommendations. The primary questions were whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce promotion recommendations when an adverse final order has been passed affecting civil servants' terms and conditions of service, whether promotion proceedings can occur prior to the actual availability of a vacant post, and whether constitutional jurisdiction can protect ill-gotten gains. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 47(2) of the Interim Constitution Act 1974 read with Section 4 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunals Act 1975, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court reiterated that promotion or appointment cannot occur without an existing vacancy, prior concurrence of S&GAD was mandatory under the Rules of Business, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate ill-gotten gains.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable by a civil servant challenging the withdrawal of promotion recommendations when exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Service Tribunal under Section 47(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974?
  • Can a Selection Board validly process and recommend a civil servant for promotion against a post that is not yet vacant at the time of consideration?
  • Can the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 be exercised to protect or perpetuate ill-gotten gains?
  • Is the prior concurrence of the Services and General Administration Department mandatory under Rule 13(3) of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Rules of Business 1985 for the promotion of officers in the Finance Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Sultan vs Hafiz Muhammad Ilyas2015 C.L.R. 1220 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shahida Sultan vs Hafiz Muhammad Ilyas, 'etc.s2015 PLJ Islamabad 194 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shahida Sultan vs Hafiz Muhammad Ilyas and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 56, 2015 PLJ Islamabad 194, 2015 CLC 1366 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-23
  oral giftgift under Islamic lawtransfer of possessionburden of prooftenancy and giftregistration of gift deedco-heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a Regular First Appeal and a Civil Revision arising from consolidated suits concerning ownership and possession of commercial property. The core legal question is whether a valid oral gift of the property was made by the deceased owner in favour of respondent No. 1, and whether the alleged gift fulfilled the essential requirements under Islamic law. The Islamabad High Court held that the beneficiary failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving the oral gift through cogent and convincing evidence, particularly given the absence of proof regarding the transfer of possession and subsequent inconsistent acts of ownership by the deceased donor. The court laid down the principle that the beneficiary of an oral gift must strictly prove all three essential elements—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—and that where the subject property is occupied by a tenant, valid delivery of possession requires attornment by the tenant acknowledging the donee as the new landlord.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential elements required to establish a valid oral gift under Islamic law?
  • Does an unregistered gift deed have any legal effect for a compulsorily registrable transaction?
  • How is delivery of possession effected when the subject matter of an oral gift is a property in the occupation of a tenant?
  • Where an oral gift is alleged, upon whom does the burden of proof lie and what standard of evidence is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Shaheen, etc vs Mst. Asif Sultana2015 C.L.R. 362 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14
  additional evidencerevisional jurisdictionappellate powerscivil procedurerecord of the casejurisdictional defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous application was filed under Order XLI, Rule 27, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence before the revisional court. The core legal question addressed is whether a revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 possesses the power to allow the production or recording of additional evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the power to permit additional evidence is strictly confined to trial courts and appellate courts, and is entirely alien to revisional jurisdiction. The court established the principle that a revisional court is strictly confined to examining the existing record of the subordinate court for any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect, and has no legal competence or inherent power to allow parties to supplement the record with additional evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revisional court have the power to permit the production of additional evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the concept of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to revisional proceedings?
  • What is the scope of the record examined by a revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Shaheen etc. vs Mst. Asif Sultana.2015 LHC 141 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14
  additional evidencerevisional jurisdictionappellate powerscivil procedurerecord of the casejurisdictional defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous application was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a revision petition, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The core legal question addressed is whether a revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent to allow the production of additional evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the power to permit additional evidence is exclusively vested in trial and appellate courts, and is entirely alien to revisional jurisdiction, which is strictly confined to examining the existing record of the subordinate court for any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect. The key principle laid down is that a revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has no power to record or permit additional evidence or to expand the record of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a revisional court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 includes the power to take additional evidence?
  • What is the scope of the term record under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in relation to subordinate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Ilahi vs Province of Punjab and others2015 CLC 680 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-11Read full judgment →
• Shahid. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 5061 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycriminal trialovert actbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Shahid, who was charged under Sections 376(2) and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to an FIR registered in 2014. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose presence at the crime scene was alleged but who was not attributed any specific overt act regarding the commission of the offence, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the absence of incriminating evidence such as DNA results or recoveries linked to him. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's vicarious liability remained a matter for trial determination and that his continued detention was not justified. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is merely alleged to be present at the scene without specific overt acts, and the prosecution fails to provide immediate incriminating evidence, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail regardless of the trial's commencement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific overt acts, constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the commencement of a trial a valid ground for the refusal of bail if the accused has otherwise made out a case for further inquiry?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being a nominated accused in an FIR when no incriminating evidence is available against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Zafar and others vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 628 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-21
  anti-terrorismdeath confirmationcommon intentionextra-judicial killingpublic park murdervicarious liabilityvideo evidencenon-compoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the daylight murder of a young civilian by Rangers personnel in a public park in Karachi, which was captured on video and broadcast publicly. The core legal questions involve whether the acts constituted terrorism attracting the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was established against the co-accused, and whether a non-compoundable anti-terrorism offense can be compounded via a compromise with legal heirs. The High Court held that the brutal manner of the killing, creating widespread fear and panic in society, squarely constituted an act of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and that the participating Rangers personnel shared a common intention. The court affirmed the death sentence of the principal offender and the life imprisonment of the co-accused while acquitting one appellant on the ground of insufficient evidence, and ruled that anti-terrorism offenses cannot be compounded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the brutal killing of an unarmed citizen by law enforcement personnel in a public park constitutes an act of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the conduct and presence of co-accused who encircle a victim and facilitate a crime?
  • Whether an offense punishable under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is compoundable under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a compromise with the legal heirs of the victim?
  • Is electronic video evidence such as a digital video recording admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to corroborate ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Rahim vs Board of Trustees of Karachi through Chairman, Karachi and another2015 PLC (C.S.) 1235 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-24
  regularization of servicecontract employeedeceased employee assistance packagediscriminationconstitutional petitionvested rightKarachi Port Trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court to challenge an official letter intimating the expiry of the petitioner's service period and seeking regularization of his services as a Peon. The petitioner, appointed under an assistance package for families of deceased government employees on a two-year contract basis, claimed discrimination because other contract and daily-wage employees had their services regularized under official directives. The core legal question concerned whether a contract employee appointed under a specific relief package for deceased employees' families has a vested right to regularization and whether the refusal to regularize amounted to actionable discrimination. The court held that appointments under the assistance package are stopgap measures intended to provide temporary financial succor following a sudden bereavement, and do not confer a vested right to permanent regularization without following prescribed appointment procedures. Furthermore, the court held that allegations of discrimination require concrete proof of unfavorable bias rather than bald assertions, and that the petitioner failed to show he met the requisite length of service under applicable regularization policies. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made on a contract basis under an assistance package for families of deceased employees confer a vested right to permanent regularization?
  • What constitutes actionable discrimination in the exercise of public discretionary authority regarding employment regularization?
  • Whether a contract employee falling short of the required service duration stipulated in a regularization policy is entitled to claim its benefit.
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Rafique and another vs The State and another2015 YLR 2181 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-18
  murderextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencedelayed dispatchbenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides Murder Reference No. 535 of 2010 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 2399 and 2400 of 2010, arising from the conviction of three appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, namely the testimony of witnesses who allegedly saw the appellants near the crime scene, an extra-judicial confession, and recoveries of firearms. The High Court observed that the witnesses, who were close relatives of the deceased, failed to disclose seeing the appellants to the police for nearly a month, rendering their belated statements highly doubtful. Furthermore, the court found that the alleged extra-judicial confession was obtained through inducement and threats, making it involuntary and legally inadmissible. The recovery of weapons was also deemed inconsequential due to the delayed dispatch of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the appellants' arrest. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession obtained through inducement or threat is admissible in evidence?
  • Does the unexplained silence of close relatives of a deceased for a month regarding vital information create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report when crime empties are dispatched after the arrest of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Qadri vs Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace & 42015 LHC 4551 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-24Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nazir vs The State and another2015 MLD 884 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidencecause of deathDiabetic Ketoacidosisdying declarationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Shahid Nazir, who was charged with the murder of his wife, Mst. Shamim Sarwar, through poisoning and physical torture. The complainant alleged that the deceased had disclosed the accused's actions to him prior to her death. However, the medical evidence, specifically the autopsy report and subsequent forensic analysis, proved inconclusive regarding poisoning. Crucially, the medical officer later concluded that the probable cause of death was Diabetic Ketoacidosis, a natural complication of diabetes. The Court observed that the complainant's narrative was inconsistent with human psychology, as it was improbable he would leave his sister in such a condition after hearing her dying declaration. Furthermore, the blunt weapon injuries noted in the autopsy had no nexus with the cause of death. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was allowed, and post-arrest bail was granted to the accused, subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of medical evidence suggesting a natural cause of death constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where the prosecution's narrative regarding the cause of death is contradicted by medical reports?
  • Does the inconsistency of a complainant's conduct with common human psychology provide a basis for questioning the veracity of an FIR at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood, Accounts Assistant, WAPDA Mangla, Mirpur vs General2015 C.L.R. 929 · Labour Appellate Tribunal
  WAPDA employeecivil servantLabour Court jurisdictiongrievance petitionService Tribunalindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was directed against the decision of the District/Labour Judge, Mirpur, which dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) falls within the definition of a civil servant, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that by virtue of Section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, service under the Authority is declared to be the service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority (not being on deputation) is deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the grievance petition, ruling that a WAPDA employee's remedy lies before the Service Tribunal rather than the Labour Court. The key principle laid down is that WAPDA employees are deemed civil servants and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority is considered a civil servant under the law?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition filed by a WAPDA employee against dismissal from service?
  • What is the effect of Section 17(1-B) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, on the status of WAPDA employees regarding service tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Manzoor vs The State and others2015 YLR 853 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-02
  condonation of delayappeal against acquittallimitation actdishonestly issuing a chequecriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition seeking condonation of a three-day delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals against acquittal so as to permit the condonation of delay. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 are not applicable to appeals against acquittal in view of the statutory bar and the specific provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908, and that vague reasons do not warrant condonation. The key principle laid down is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to appeals against acquittal, and an accused acquires a precious right upon acquittal which requires strict application of limitation laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to appeals against acquittal?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal be condoned on vague grounds?
  • Does Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 to special laws prescribing different limitation periods?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Sheikh Khalid Saeed2015 YLR 34 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-11Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Mehtab Khan2015 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Imran vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 779 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-22
  interim custodynarcotics traffickingSuperdariControl of Narcotic Substances Actconfiscation of vehiclerevision petitionstatutory remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge refusing the interim custody (Superdari) of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotics offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether a vehicle seized under the Act could be released on interim custody despite the embargo in Section 74, and whether the revision petition was maintainable. The Court held that while Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, creates a general embargo on releasing vehicles involved in narcotics offenses, it is not an absolute bar if the claimant can prima facie establish a lack of nexus with the crime. However, the Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such lack of knowledge, particularly as the driver was his employee. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the revision petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which takes precedence over general criminal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in a narcotics case be released on interim custody despite the embargo in Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the owner of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case have the burden to prove lack of knowledge of the offense to obtain interim custody?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order passed by a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 48?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Imran The State vs The State Shahid Imran2015 LHC 7725 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-10
  murderdeath sentence mitigationocular accountrelated witnessesmedical evidenceunproven motivesingle firearm injurycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Shahid Imran, along with co-accused, was tried for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The appellant challenged his conviction through an appeal, and the trial court submitted a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court examined whether the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to maintain the conviction despite the failure to prove motive and the inconsequential nature of weapon recovery. The Court held that the eyewitness testimony, though from related witnesses residing in the same house, remained reliable and was fully supported by medical evidence. However, the Court found that the unproven motive, the single firearm shot without repetition, and the inconclusive weapon recovery served as mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the High Court maintained the appellant's conviction for murder but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested witnesses can be relied upon in a murder trial without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a single unrepeated firearm injury act as a mitigating factor to warrant the alternative sentence of life imprisonment instead of death?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons based on benefit of doubt automatically extends any relief to the main convicted appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealnarcotics possessionreduction of sentencefirst offenderremission of fineCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possession of contraband charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and whether leniency should be extended to a first-time offender who does not contest the conviction but seeks reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. The court held that considering the appellant is a young first offender, has shown remorse, and has already served a substantial portion of his sentence along with remissions, he is entitled to leniency. The appeal against conviction was dismissed as not pressed, but the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and the fine was remitted in its entirety, following established precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a first offender convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act can be reduced to the period already undergone?
  • Can an appellate court remit the fine imposed upon a convict upon considering mitigating circumstances?
  • Whether an appellant who does not press the appeal against conviction can be granted leniency regarding the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Prem Kumar and 2 others2015 YLR 691 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-22
  dishonoured chequecriminal liabilityappeal against acquittalburden of proofbenefit of doubtcommercial transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal against acquittal challenges the judgment of the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Moro, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 489-F and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondents issued a cheque for a grain transaction that was subsequently dishonoured and that the respondents later issued death threats. The core legal question was whether the mere possession of a dishonoured cheque is sufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 489-F, PPC, in the absence of evidence proving an underlying obligation or loan. The Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the existence of any business transaction or obligation, noting the complainant's inability to produce any record of the sale. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that for a conviction under Section 489-F, PPC, the dishonoured cheque must be proven to have been issued for the fulfilment of a specific obligation or repayment of a loan; mere possession of a cheque is insufficient evidence of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere possession of a dishonoured cheque sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad through Chairman & 4 others2015 PLJ Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and 4 others2015 PLJ Karachi 138, 2015 P Cr. L J 883 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06
  post-arrest bailcorruption and corrupt practicesfurther inquirydelay in trialNational Accountability Ordinanceembezzlementspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a constitutional petition filed to challenge the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner's brother, Shahid Hussain, who was subsequently implicated as the petitioner following the filing of NAB Reference No. 13 of 2014 concerning the misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds at the National Bank of Pakistan, Airport Branch, Karachi. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner, a former branch manager, was entitled to post-arrest bail given the contradictory allegations in the reference, the nature of witness statements, and the inordinate delay in concluding the trial contrary to statutory mandates. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry as contemplated under the law, and that the protracted delay in trial proceedings without fault on the part of the accused warranted the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, an accused cannot be detained indefinitely, and unreasonable, unexplained delay in concluding a trial—especially where a statute mandates speedy disposal—constitutes a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictory allegations in a reference regarding an accused's role make the case one of further inquiry warranting bail?
  • Does inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding a trial under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in indefinite detention when the trial court fails to conclude the proceedings within the timeframe prescribed by section 16 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Malik vs Azad Government of the Stateof Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-12-20
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantservice tribunalleave to appealparent departmentborrowing department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging his repatriation from the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) to his parent Electricity Department. The core legal questions involved the legality of repatriating a civil servant on deputation prior to the expiry of an extended deputation term, whether prior consultation with the parent department is mandatory, and the limits of deputation periods under the applicable policy. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the repatriation order was legal and justified, finding that the petitioner had exceeded the maximum permissible deputation limits under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Deputation Policy 1979 and that the borrowing department retains the prerogative to return an officer who creates administrative hardships. The Court laid down that a civil servant cannot claim a vested right to remain on deputation on a particular post, and after completing a deputation tenure, mandatory rules regarding return to the parent department must be observed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right to remain posted on deputation in a borrowing department?
  • Does the borrowing department have the prerogative to send a civil servant back to their parent department before the completion of their deputation period due to administrative friction?
  • What are the statutory and policy limitations regarding the maximum duration of a deputation period for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain etc. vs Ibrar Ali etc.2015 LHC 2038 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hameed vs The State, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 214 · Lahore High Court · 2013-07-22
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequesecurity chequegambling transactionprohibitory clausecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner sought confirmation of ad-interim bail, arguing that the transaction involved a gambling bet rather than a legitimate business investment, that the cheque was issued as security, and that it was returned due to a dormant account rather than insufficient funds. The complainant alleged fraud, asserting the cheque was issued knowingly without funds. The Court examined the arbitration agreement between the parties and found no evidence of a legitimate property business transaction, noting the complainant's admission regarding the gambling nature of the dispute. The Court held that the cheque was provided as security and that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that incarceration at this stage would constitute imprisonment before conviction, particularly as no further recovery was required from the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a cheque issued as security or guarantee for a debt form the basis of a criminal charge under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the underlying transaction is admitted to be based on an illegal gambling bet?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ansari & others vs The Chairman, NAB & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ansari & 4 others vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau2015 PLJ Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid alias Pappa vs State2015 LHC 1165, PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 388 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-03
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtchain of custodyprosecution evidencematerial contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 180 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions regarding the timing of the recovery, the arrival of the investigating officer at the crime scene, and the chain of custody of the contraband samples sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Court noted discrepancies between witness testimonies and the official records, particularly concerning the dates of transmission and receipt of samples. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to establish its case affirmatively. Any material doubt arising from contradictions in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused, as the benefit of reasonable doubt cannot be denied.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction in the chain of custody of narcotic samples entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies on the burden of proof in criminal cases?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the recovery proceedings beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali Gil vs Mst. Ruqayya Bano and 4 others2015 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 2012-10-16
  interim maintenanceinterlocutory orderFamily Courts Actconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitySection 17-ASection 14(3)
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging an order passed by the VIIth Family Judge, Malir Karachi, whereby interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,500 per month was fixed for each respondent (wife and three minor children) under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The petitioner contended that he was a daily wager earning Rs. 200 per day and that the fixed amount was exorbitant and beyond his financial capacity. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interlocutory interim order for maintenance passed by a Family Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 14(3) of the Act, the legislature explicitly prohibits appeals and revisions against interim orders, making constitutional interference inappropriate as the order was passed with jurisdiction and would ultimately merge into the final decision. The court re-affirmed that constitutional petitions against interlocutory interim orders of Family Courts are not maintainable, and directed the trial court to decide the suit within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory interim maintenance order passed by a Family Court?
  • Does Section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 bar appeals or revisions against interim orders passed under Section 17-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmed vs Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. through Managing Director, Islamabad and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-02-28
  date of birth correctionservice recordsuperannuationlachesconstitutional jurisdictionservice rulesadministrative circulars
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition seeking the correction of the petitioner’s date of birth in his service record. The petitioner, having served for over twenty years, sought to alter his date of birth from 1953 to 1956 based on documents obtained long after his initial appointment. The core legal question was whether an employee is entitled to amend their recorded date of birth near the age of superannuation, contrary to the employer's established circulars mandating the finality of the date of birth declared at the time of entry into service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to justify the inordinate delay in seeking correction and that the employer's circulars prohibiting such amendments were binding. The Court established that the date of birth declared at the time of joining service is final and cannot be altered at a later stage. Additionally, the Court held that prior erroneous corrections made for other employees do not create a vested right for others to claim similar relief based on discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee seek correction of their date of birth in service records after a significant delay and near the age of superannuation?
  • Is the date of birth declared at the time of entry into service considered final and unalterable under established service rules?
  • Does the correction of a date of birth for one employee, contrary to service rules, create a right for other employees to demand similar treatment on the grounds of discrimination?
  • Can a constitutional petition be used to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the authenticity of documents used for date of birth correction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid @ Pappa vs The State2015 LHC 1165 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-03
  narcotics controlcharas recoverychain of custodycontradictions in prosecution evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge and the chain of custody of the recovered contraband beyond any shadow of doubt. The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that glaring material contradictions regarding the time and date of the alleged recovery, the handling of the case property by various police officials, and discrepancies surrounding the transmission of the sample to the Chemical Examiner severely compromised the credibility of the recovery proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case affirmatively and maintain an unimpeachable chain of custody from the point of arrest and seizure until the contraband reaches the forensic laboratory, and any material contradiction or broken link in this chain entitles the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction in the dates and times of the recovery of contraband and its handling by police officials render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when discrepancies exist in the chain of custody of a narcotic sample sent to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered narcotics from the time of seizure to the forensic laboratory?
  • When should an accused be granted the benefit of doubt in a criminal trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid @ Aamir & another vs The State2015 SHC 67 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shaheen Ullah vs Allah Noor etc2015 LHC 7061 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-03
  bail cancellationfurther inquirymurderpolice investigationipsi dixit of policemisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the cancellation of pre-trial or post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether bail granted to the accused on the ground of further inquiry, supported by police investigation finding him innocent and discrepancies in eyewitness statements, warranted cancellation by the High Court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court furnished sound reasons for granting bail under the rule of further inquiry and that the police opinion, though not strictly binding, remains relevant at the bail stage regarding an accused's innocence. The key principle laid down is that an appellate or revisional court should be slow to interfere with bail granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the granting order is based on artificial, fanciful, or arbitrary reasons, or unless fresh material indicating guilt is brought on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without demonstrating that the grounds for granting it were artificial, fanciful, or arbitrary?
  • Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused relevant at the bail stage?
  • What are the principles for interfering with an order granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Insurance Company Limited: In the matter of vs Not2015 CLD 621 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2013-12-16
  corporate compliancecompany secretarylisted companyfiduciary dutiesstatutory defaultregulatory penaltycorporate governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns proceedings initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan against Shaheen Insurance Company Limited for failing to appoint a whole-time company secretary, as mandated for public listed companies. The core legal question was whether the company contravened the statutory requirements of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and whether such default warranted penal action against the company and its directors. The Director (Insurance) held that the company indeed defaulted on its statutory obligation under section 204-A(1) of the Ordinance, noting that directors bear fiduciary duties and a higher standard of accountability to ensure compliance with corporate laws. While the default was established and punishable under section 498, the Commission adopted a lenient approach, opting to issue a stern warning rather than imposing a monetary penalty, citing the company's subsequent remedial actions in filling the vacant position. The principle laid down is that listed companies must maintain a whole-time secretary to ensure statutory compliance, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of directors' fiduciary duties, subjecting the entity to potential regulatory penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public listed company legally required to appoint a whole-time company secretary?
  • What are the consequences for a company failing to maintain a whole-time company secretary under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan impose penalties on directors for failure to comply with statutory corporate requirements?
  • Do directors of a company have fiduciary duties to ensure compliance with statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Insurance Company Limited and 7 otherss vs Director2015 CLD 967 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2014-02-13
  minimum solvency requirementinsurance companypaid-up capitalpenaltySecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistanregulatory complianceadmissible assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 against an order imposing penalties on Shaheen Insurance Company Limited and its directors for failing to meet statutory minimum solvency requirements under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether an insurance company and its directors can be penalized for involuntary or unintentional non-compliance with minimum solvency and paid-up capital requirements, notwithstanding subsequent business plans submitted to raise capital. The Appellate Bench held that compliance with minimum solvency requirements is a mandatory, continuous obligation under the law, and unintentional failure or the submission of a future business plan does not excuse statutory non-compliance or warrant setting aside penalties. The key principle laid down is that insurers must maintain admissible assets in excess of liabilities at all times, and directors must proactively ensure strict adherence to regulatory solvency mandates regardless of mitigating circumstances or proposed future capital-raising initiatives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an insurance company can be penalized under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 for failing to maintain the mandatory minimum solvency requirements?
  • Does an unintentional or involuntary failure to meet statutory solvency levels exempt an insurance company and its directors from penalties?
  • Can the statutory requirement of maintaining minimum solvency be waived on the basis of a future business plan or capital-raising initiative?
  • Are directors of an insurance company legally obligated to proactively ensure compliance with minimum solvency and capital requirements at all times?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Construction Company through Chief Executive vs Fauji2015 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-24
  Section 34 Arbitration Actinterim injunctionstay of suitcontractor lienstep in the proceedingsrecovery of moneyarbitration clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This order sets out the reasons for dismissing the plaintiff's application for interim injunctive relief (C.M.A. 3025/2013) and granting the defendant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (C.M.A. 3670/2013). The plaintiff, a construction firm, sought to retain possession of three completed project sites pending the settlement of disputed cost escalation claims and unpaid retention monies. The High Court held that interim injunctive relief preventing a land owner from taking possession of its property cannot be granted in a suit primarily for money recovery, as general law does not confer a contractor's lien over the site. Evaluating Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court determined that filing a counter-affidavit to an injunction application before filing a written statement does not constitute a 'step in the proceedings' or an abandonment of the arbitration agreement. Finding a valid arbitration clause and a prima facie dispute, the court stayed the suit and referred the parties to arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractor retain possession of a project site via an interim injunction in a suit for recovery of money?
  • Does filing a counter-affidavit against an interim injunction application constitute taking a step in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does a contractor possess a legal lien over immovable property constructed for a client to secure payment of disputed claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State and another.2015 LHC 1956 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidencevicarious liabilityinvestigation reportbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two bail petitions: one for post-arrest bail and one for pre-arrest bail, arising from a criminal case involving allegations of assault and injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the inconsistencies between the FIR, medical evidence, and the investigating officer's findings regarding the specific injuries attributed to each accused. The court held that where the prosecution fails to specify which injury was caused by a particular accused, and where medical reports do not clearly link an accused to a non-bailable offence, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the primary accused and confirmed pre-arrest bail for the others. The key principle laid down is that when the prosecution's evidence is ambiguous regarding the specific role of an accused in causing a non-bailable injury, and the investigating officer has found the accused innocent, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be resolved in favor of the accused under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to specify which injury was caused by an accused in a multi-injury case justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigating officer has declared the accused innocent during the investigation?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the medical evidence is inconsistent with the eyewitness account regarding the specific injuries attributed to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs State2015 MLD 1061 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-22
  criminal appealdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRdishonest improvementmedical evidencemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a Murder Reference for sentence confirmation. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence in light of significant delays in FIR registration and post-mortem examination, the impact of inconsistent witness statements, and the evidentiary value of motive and recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant’s repeated changes in the attribution of specific roles to the accused rendered the ocular testimony unreliable and indicative of fabrication. It was held that medical evidence cannot identify an assailant and only confirms injury details. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that motive is a double-edged weapon and that delayed police procedures suggest deliberation. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, rejected the Murder Reference, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of co-accused, establishing that a single circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR and the conduct of a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence be used to corroborate the identity of an accused person in a murder case?
  • What is the legal effect of a complainant making divergent and inconsistent statements regarding the roles of accused persons during trial?
  • Is motive alone sufficient to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Latif vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, etc2015 KLR Criminal Cases 137 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-07Read full judgment →
• Shahan and another vs The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin vs Muhammad Hashim Khan and another2015 P Cr. L J 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-25
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencesolitary witnessdouble presumption of innocencemedical evidencecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a solitary, related eye-witness. The Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution’s case suffered from material contradictions, including discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the unnatural conduct of the complainant. Furthermore, the Court noted the respondent’s advanced age and physical infirmity, which rendered the alleged commission of the crime implausible. The Court held that when an eye-witness’s testimony is unreliable and uncorroborated, the prosecution fails to meet its burden. It reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court must be slow to reverse an acquittal, which carries a double presumption of innocence, unless the judgment is arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a solitary, related witness without independent corroboration?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is not arbitrary or capricious?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient, by itself, to establish guilt in the absence of other reliable evidence?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab-Ud-Din and 9 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and 2 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 22 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  public service commissionclosing dateconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory functionmandatory time limit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by ten petitioners seeking a direction against the Balochistan Public Service Commission to extend the closing date for submission of applications for the posts of Pharmacists/Drug Analysts and Drug Inspectors advertised in March 2014, as their final professional examination results were announced after the original closing date. The core legal question was whether the fixing of a closing date for job applications by a public service commission is a mandatory statutory function and whether candidates have an enforceable right to seek an extension due to delayed academic results. The Court held that fixing the schedule and closing date for applications is a valid statutory function of the Commission falling within the realm of policy, and failure by private candidates to submit applications within the specified time is fatal to their claim. The Court laid down the principle that statutory deadlines for private individuals to claim rights are mandatory, and constitutional petitions are not maintainable against such administrative policy decisions in the absence of any statutory violation or malice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the fixing of a closing date for submission of applications by the Public Service Commission is a mandatory statutory function?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the refusal of a Public Service Commission to extend the last date for submitting job applications?
  • Does failure by a candidate to submit an application within the specified time prove fatal to their claim for public employment?
  • Is the fixation of an application schedule by the Public Service Commission considered a matter of policy having statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Qasim and others vs Arshan. Bibi and others2015 YLR 1751 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Pur vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz, etc Shahnawaz, etc Muhammad Akram The State vs The State, etc The State, etc Raza Hayat, etc Shah Nawaz, etc2015 LHC 2195 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-01
  murderdeath sentenceunnamed accusedtest identification paradeimprovements in testimonybenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference and a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of an un-named FIR, massive improvements in witness testimony, the necessity of a test identification parade, and the requirement of independent corroboration in cases of political rivalry. The Lahore High Court held that the omission of the appellants' names from the initial complaint, coupled with material improvements at trial and the failure to hold a test identification parade, renders the prosecution evidence unreliable, especially in the absence of independent corroboration. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and declined leave to appeal against the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of implicating accused persons who were not named in the initial first information report or complaint?
  • Whether the failure to hold a test identification parade is fatal to the prosecution case when the accused are not initially named?
  • Can a witness's testimony that contains massive improvements from their previous statement form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony in cases involving deep-seated political rivalry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 6646 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-30
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquiryjuvenile offenderevidentiary doubtFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged rape of a minor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary material presented. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. The court reasoned that there was an unexplained 12-day delay in lodging the FIR, the medical evidence failed to conclusively support the prosecution's version of rape, and the victim's history provided to the doctor did not name the assailants. Furthermore, the court noted the existence of previous animosity between the parties, the petitioner's status as a juvenile, and the absence of incriminating recovery. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner's guilt necessitated further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is clouded by significant evidentiary gaps and unexplained delays, the accused is entitled to bail pending further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a rape case warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • When does a criminal case necessitate further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the absence of a conclusive medical opinion regarding rape a ground for granting bail to an accused?
  • Does the status of an accused as a juvenile influence the court's decision in a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs NotSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs Muhkamuddin and 7 others2015 P Cr. L J 1724 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-15
  criminal appealacquittaldouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtdirect complaintmedical evidenceinadmissible evidenceenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate in a direct complaint case involving charges of assault and robbery. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal, based on findings of deep-seated enmity, lack of independent corroboration, and reliance on inadmissible medical evidence, warranted appellate interference. The High Court upheld the acquittal, reasoning that the trial court’s assessment of evidence was sound. The Court held that an order of acquittal carries a 'double presumption of innocence,' placing a heavy burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that the acquittal was perverse, unreasonable, or manifestly wrong. Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt—partly due to the reliance on inadmissible photocopies of medical certificates and the absence of independent witnesses in a busy market area—the appellate court declined to interfere. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts should accord significant weight to trial court findings in acquittal matters and will not disturb them unless they suffer from clear illegality or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal standard for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does the production of photocopies of medical certificates instead of originals render medical evidence inadmissible?
  • What is the effect of a 'double presumption of innocence' in an appeal against acquittal?
  • Can an acquittal be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce independent witnesses for an incident occurring in a public place?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Export Processing Zones Authority2015 C.L.R. 42, 2015 CLC 790 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Export Processing Zone Authority2015 C.L.R. 42 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-01
  rejection of plaintcause of actionlocus standicivil court jurisdictiondamagescontinuing cause of actionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arose from an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration, injunction, and damages filed against the Export Processing Zone Authority. The core legal questions involved whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, whether the plaintiff lacked locus standi, whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965, and whether the claim for damages was barred by limitation under Article 2 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action arising from the alleged violation of the general agreement and lease deed, that the Export Processing Zone Authority Ordinance 1980 did not bar civil court jurisdiction, and that the claims involving continuing acts such as disconnection of utilities constituted a continuing cause of action. The application for rejection of the plaint was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaint disclose a cause of action when it challenges the cancellation of lease and allotment of plots along with allegations of damages caused by the defendant?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred under the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965 in disputes governed by the Export Processing Zone Authority Ordinance 1980?
  • Is a claim for damages based on continuous acts such as disconnection of utilities and blocking access barred by Article 2 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does an unsuccessful application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 implicitly concede the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Additional Sessions Judge, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-16Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 3 others vs Abdul Samad and 6 others2015 C.L.R. 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-27
  civil revisionmutation entryShamilaat landframing of issuesnecessary partiesjoint holdingremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute over mutation entries concerning Shamilaat land. The core legal questions involved the failure of the lower courts to frame proper issues regarding the real controversy between the parties and the failure to implead necessary co-owners in a dispute involving joint holding. The Balochistan High Court held that both the trial and appellate courts committed material irregularities and illegalities by omitting to frame an issue on the validity of the foundational mutation entry and by failing to ensure all co-owners of the Shamilaat land were parties to the suit. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the judgments and decrees of both lower courts, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after framing the necessary issue and impleading all necessary shareholders. The key principle laid down is that the court is under a mandatory duty to frame proper issues reflecting the pleadings and ensure all necessary co-owners/shareholders of joint property are joined as parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to frame an issue regarding the foundational mutation entry vitiates the judgments of the lower courts?
  • Is it mandatory to implead all co-owners or shareholders of Shamilaat land in a suit challenging mutations of common property?
  • Can a court remand a matter for fresh decision when material issues of fact and law have been left unattended by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Miran vs M. Taufiq Khan and others2015 MLD 480 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-07
  civil revisionpleadingssecundum allegata et probataimprovement of caseoccupancy tenantrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts, which decreed the respondents' suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, and possession regarding the suit land, and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question was whether a party can set up a new case or improve its pleadings through evidence at a later stage, particularly during arguments in a revision petition, without having pleaded the same in the original written statement. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a party is strictly bound by its pleadings under the principle of secundum allegata et probata and cannot be allowed to improve its case during evidence or at the revisional stage. The key principle laid down is that facts must be specifically pleaded before they are allowed to be proved through evidence, and concurrent findings of fact by courts below cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless tainted with jurisdictional defects, illegality, or material irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party improve its case from what was originally set up in the pleadings during evidence or at the revisional stage?
  • What is the scope of interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by courts of competent jurisdiction?
  • Whether failure to plead a fact in the written statement bars a party from raising it during arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailSindh Arms Act 2013unlicensed weapondefinition of firearmsSection 103 CrPCsearch and recoverycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application for an offense under the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal questions were whether a pistol falls within the definition of 'firearms' under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, thereby attracting the punishment under Section 23(1)(a), and whether non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants the grant of bail. The Court held that a pistol is a 'firearm' under the Act, rejecting the contention that it is merely 'arms,' and thus Section 23(1)(a) is applicable. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not mandatory for search and recovery operations under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, as the Act specifically excludes its rigid application. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the legislature intended to facilitate enforcement in the face of prevailing law and order challenges. Bail was refused due to sufficient incriminating material.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pistol fall within the definition of 'firearms' under the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  • Is compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for search and recovery under the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  • Can bail be granted solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases under the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs Muhammad Noor and another2015 P Cr. L J 1482 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-29
  acquittal appealmurderunnatural conductdelayed FIRjoint propertyrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arose from a trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of the charge of murdering his father. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular account of the deceased's other two sons, the recovery of a weapon on the respondent's pointation, and a prior statement of one of the sons. The High Court examined the admissibility of the disclosure and pointation under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, noting that the place of incident was already known to the police, thus excluding it from the scope of Article 40. The Court also found that the statement of the witness lacked evidentiary value due to the absence of notice under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Crucially, the Court observed that the eyewitnesses' conduct was highly unnatural as they remained silent for eleven months after the incident and stood to inherit the deceased's substantial land holdings upon the respondent's exclusion. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no perversity in the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can information leading to the discovery of a place already known to the police be admitted under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if no notice was given to the accused?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of close relatives remaining silent for eleven months after a murder affect the credibility of their ocular account?
  • Can a potential financial or property motive for false implication by prosecution witnesses justify the grant of the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal and 2 others vs Mst. Nishat and another2015 P Cr. L J 1397 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-02
  defamationcriminal appealcognizance of offenceCourt of Sessiongood faithquantum of sentencenewspaper publication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code for publishing defamatory news items regarding the complainant's moral character, sentencing them to five years' simple imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court rightly took cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a formal sending under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of defamation. The Peshawar High Court held that the Court of Session was fully competent to take cognizance upon a direct private complaint pursuant to the special procedures governing defamation under Chapter XVI and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the appellants failed to establish that the publication was made in good faith or for the public good. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from five years to two years.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Court of Session take original cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code upon a direct complaint without a committal order under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether the procedure provided under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure overrides the general bar on Courts of Session taking original cognizance in private complaint cases?
  • What constitutes defamation under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code when imputations regarding moral character are published in newspapers?
  • Does the publication of unverified allegations against a person's chastity attract liability for defamation if the accused fails to prove good faith or public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Daraz Khan vs Mst. Naila and 3 others2015 MLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Bali and Niaz Ali vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealcommon intentionbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesmurderappreciation of evidencematrimonial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder case involving a matrimonial dispute. The prosecution alleged that the appellants held the deceased while an absconding co-accused inflicted a fatal blow. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellants' common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and whether the evidence provided by interested witnesses was reliable enough to sustain a capital conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and determined that the appellants' alleged role of 'catching hold' of the deceased did not, in the absence of evidence of pre-concerted action or shared criminal intent, satisfy the requirements of Section 34. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and emphasized that in capital cases, evidence from interested sources requires strong corroboration, and the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of 'catching hold' of a victim by an accused, without more, establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the testimony of interested and partisan witnesses sufficient to sustain a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory versions of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Ameer Mujtaba vs XX Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (East) and 32015 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 2013-05-06Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Abdullah vs Commissioner Inland Revenue etc.2015 LHC 3190 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Shafquat Mehmood vs The State2015 YLR 2163 · Sindh High Court · 2013-02-28
  narcotic substancescriminal appealbenefit of doubtchemical examination delaymashirnamapublic witnessescontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions involved whether material contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies, the unexplained failure to associate public witnesses despite their availability, an eight-day delay in sending samples for chemical examination, and discrepancies in sample weights created sufficient doubt to vitiate the conviction. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The holding establishes that glaring contradictions regarding the presence of public witnesses, failure to comply with procedural timelines for chemical analysis, and unexplained discrepancies in recovered substance weights create reasonable doubts, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a major contradiction between prosecution witnesses regarding the presence and availability of public witnesses at the time of arrest create a sufficient dent in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical examination beyond the prescribed timeframe?
  • Does the failure of police officials to associate available private persons as mashirs of arrest and recovery cast serious doubt on the alleged recovery?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when multiple material discrepancies and contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 8 others2015 PLJ Islamabad 235 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-11Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali, Ex-Warder of Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore vs Superintendent Central Jail, Lahore and others2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 76 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2014-12-09
  service appealremoval from serviceretrospective penaltyshow-cause noticeunauthorized absencepunish and modifymaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged the removal from service of a prison warder who was penalized for unauthorized absence from duty following disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal questions involved whether the show-cause notices were duly served, whether a penalty order could be given retrospective effect, and whether the penalty was disproportionate. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the appellant was condemned unheard as proof of service of show-cause notices was not established, and that the penalty order was illegal for being made effective retrospectively. Consequently, the Tribunal partially accepted the appeal, setting aside the removal from service and modifying the penalty to withholding of increment for one year, while reinstating the appellant into service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a penalty order in disciplinary proceedings be given retrospective effect?
  • Whether failure to prove service of show-cause notices violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does unauthorized absence from duty always warrant a major penalty without regular inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan and 2 others2015 MLD 1767 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-08Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs Mr. Muhammad Ijaz Khan Sani, Advocate2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-06
  date of birth correctioncivil revisionlimitationdocumentary evidenceoverwriting and tamperingservice record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration seeking correction of his date of birth from 01.01.1956 to 01.01.1959. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner established grounds for rectifying his date of birth in official records and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the primary school documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner bore visible overwriting and tampering, whereas official records including his Secondary School Certificate, National Identity Card, and Middle School Admissions Register consistently reflected his date of birth as 01.01.1956. Furthermore, the Court held that the suit filed decades later was hopelessly time-barred and that corrections in date of birth for government servants require government sanction within the prescribed limitation period. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit for the correction of date of birth be maintained on the basis of tampered or altered school admission registers?
  • Whether a suit for declaration of date of birth filed decades after obtaining a Secondary School Certificate and National Identity Card is barred by limitation?
  • Is a government servant competent to seek the correction of a date of birth in service records without the requisite sanction of the Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah Khan, Vice-President Zonal ZTBL, Peshawar and 79 others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through President and 5 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafiqur Rehman vs Peshawar Development Authority (Pda), Peshawar through Director-General and 4 others2015 CLC 814 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-15
  constitutional jurisdictiondisputed questions of facturban planningparking regulationswrit petition maintainabilityPeshawar Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private medical institute, sought the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge a notice issued by the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) directing the institute to arrange parking for visitors and staff within its premises. The petitioner alleged the notice was discriminatory and lacked justification, while the PDA contended that the institute had illegally converted approved parking spaces into other uses, causing traffic and security hazards on public roads. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could adjudicate upon these disputed questions of fact regarding the existence and conversion of parking spaces. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because it involved contentious factual disputes requiring evidence, which could not be resolved through writ jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex factual controversies unless the illegality is apparent from admitted facts or documents. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with directions for the PDA to enforce urban planning regulations impartially and report on its progress.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court adjudicate upon contentious questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in factual disputes during writ proceedings?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the resolution of the dispute requires the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Qureshi Hyderabad Chambers of & others vs CommerceSindh High Court · -
  company jurisdictiontrade organizationelectoral collegeassociate membershipannual turnoverextraordinary general meetingcivil court jurisdictioninternal management disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two connected suits concerning the governance, voter eligibility, and election schedule of the Hyderabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a trade organization registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The core legal questions involved the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction of the High Court, the proper interpretation of membership criteria (specifically regarding annual turnover thresholds for associate members) under the company's Articles of Association, and the validity of actions taken by the management following an interim stay on elections. The court held that the suits were maintainable and that it possessed territorial jurisdiction due to the inaction of a regulatory authority situated within its jurisdiction, and further interpreted the membership clauses to require a democratic mechanism rather than the abrupt disenfranchisement of members. The court laid down the principle that civil courts retain jurisdiction in company matters unless expressly ousted, and that internal governance disputes involving large membership bodies should be resolved through extraordinary general meetings and transparent electoral processes supervised by the court's Nazir.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge the voter lists and management affairs of a company registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984, or if recourse must exclusively be sought through summary proceedings under Section 152?
  • Does the High Court possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a trade organization located in another district when a federal regulatory authority impleaded as a defendant has its principal office within the court's territorial limits?
  • Whether the requirement of an annual turnover of fifty million rupees applies to associate members as well as corporate members under the relevant Articles of Association?
  • Can the incumbent executive committee unilaterally form an ad-hoc administrative committee and alter management control while an interim court order staying elections is in force?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Qureshi and otherss vs Hyderabad Chambers of Commerceand Industry through President and others2015 CLD 107 · Sindh High Court · 2013-08-05
  trade organizationcompanies ordinanceassociate memberelectoral collegejurisdictioninterim injunctionextraordinary general meeting
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two suits concerning the electoral college, membership classification, and governance of the Hyderabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The plaintiffs challenged the voter lists and the eligibility of associate members who allegedly did not meet the annual turnover threshold of Rs. 50 million, and contested the appointment of an ad hoc committee following a stay on elections. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability and territorial jurisdiction of the court, the proper interpretation of associate membership criteria regarding annual turnover, and the legal effect of interim restraining orders on the continuation of the previous management. The court held that the suits were maintainable within its territorial jurisdiction due to the inaction of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan situated in Karachi, and that associate members must meet the annual turnover requirement. The court decreed that the existing executive committee should temporarily continue and convene an extraordinary general meeting to address the articles of association, followed by supervised elections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit challenging a trade organization's voter list and membership criteria is maintainable before a High Court?
  • Whether an associate member of a chamber of commerce must possess the minimum annual turnover threshold of Rs. 50 million?
  • Whether the previous executive committee of a company lawfully continues to hold office upon the issuance of an interim order staying annual elections?
  • Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan has regulatory oversight over trade organizations whose objects are not confined to a single province?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmad, ASI vs Sher Alam and 6 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 9, 2015 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-07Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Hussain Gondal vs United Bank Limited through its President, Chundrigarh Road, Karachi and 4 others2015 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 313 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2015-04-14
  industrial relationsworkmangrievance petitionbank employeepremature retirementdismissal from servicemanagerial capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was directed against an order passed by a Single Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission dismissing a grievance petition filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The appellant, formerly an Officer Grade-II and Branch Manager at the respondent bank, had sought premature retirement, which was allowed, but was subsequently issued a charge sheet, subjected to an inquiry, and dismissed from service. The core legal question was whether a bank employee performing managerial and supervisory duties as a Branch Manager falls within the definition of a 'workman' so as to maintain a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Commission held that since the appellant performed managerial and supervisory duties and held a Power of Attorney, he did not fall within the definition of a workman under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, rendering his appeal not maintainable. The Commission laid down the principle that bank employees discharging managerial and supervisory duties are excluded from the ambit of workman, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank employee performing managerial and supervisory duties as a Branch Manager qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 maintainable by an employee who does not fall within the definition of a workman?
  • Does an employee holding a Power of Attorney and performing administrative duties fall beyond the purview of the term workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali vs The State, etc2015 LHC 5532 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-20
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquiryreasonable doubtchemical examiner reportnarcotics testing laboratoriesstatutory duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns a charge under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 1250 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the contradictions in the prosecution's recovery narrative and the delay in chemical analysis. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's claim that the petitioner held the contraband in his right hand was physically impossible due to his amputation, thereby creating reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court determined that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the bail bar in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 inapplicable. Additionally, the court laid down the principle that the Federal and Provincial Governments are under a mandatory statutory obligation pursuant to Section 34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to establish and notify Narcotics Testing Laboratories, a duty that has remained unfulfilled since the Act's enactment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amputation of the hand, which contradicts the prosecution's version of recovery, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the Federal and Provincial Governments legally mandated to establish Narcotics Testing Laboratories under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the bar on bail contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be invoked when the prosecution's case is subject to reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaq Aqeel vs Shafqat Ali Amjad and others2015 MLD 987 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-30
  ejectment petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantoral agreement to sellmisreading of evidenceconstitutional jurisdictionbona fide needdefault
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent findings of the lower forums dismissing an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 on the grounds of personal bona fide need and willful default. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties despite respondent No. 1 denying the same and setting up an oral agreement to sell executed by the petitioner's husband. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being the registered owner via a valid sale deed, was the landlady, and that an oral agreement to sell confers no title to deny tenancy. The Court set aside the impugned orders for misreading and non-reading of evidence. The key principles laid down are that an owner of property is presumed to be the landlord, an agreement to sell does not extinguish tenancy rights or ownership status, and the High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction when findings of lower courts suffer from patent misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an oral agreement to sell executed by a third party extinguish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can a High Court interfere in findings of fact by lower rent forums in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the registered owner of a property is presumed to be the landlord in the absence of evidence to the contrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafakat Ali vs StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyco-accusedcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Shafakat Ali, who was charged under sections 392, 353, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail primarily on the 'rule of consistency,' arguing that his co-accused, who faced identical allegations, had already been granted bail by the court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency when his co-accused had already been released. The court examined the prosecution's case, noting that no injuries were sustained during the alleged encounter and that the applicant was no longer required for investigation. The court held that the applicant's case was on par with his co-accused and, given the Assistant Prosecutor General's lack of objection, the rule of consistency applied. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused persons face identical roles and circumstances, the rule of consistency mandates that they be treated equally in matters of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
  • Does the absence of injuries in an alleged encounter affect the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for bail purposes?
  • Should the court consider the potential for lesser punishment during the tentative assessment of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shad vs Royedad2015 CLC 931, 2015 C.L.R. 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-20Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Sarwara2015 MLD 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-23Read full judgment →
• Shabnam vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2015 PLC (C.S.) 1111 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-03
  civil serviceappointment on meritdomicile of wifeSuccession Actlocus standischool based recruitmentbona fide resident
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the annulment of an appointment order dated 19-5-2014 and requesting her own appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher (P.S.T. BPS-12) in Union Council Duskhel, District Dir Lower, on the basis of merit. The petitioner contended that although respondent No. 5 obtained higher marks, she was ineligible because she originally hailed from District Swat and not from Union Council Duskhel. The Peshawar High Court examined the residency status of respondent No. 5, who had married a resident of District Dir Lower prior to her appointment, as evidenced by her marriage registration certificate and National Identity Card. The Court held that under sections 15 and 16 of the Succession Act, 1925, a wife's domicile during marriage automatically follows that of her husband. Consequently, respondent No. 5 became a bona fide resident of the Union Council upon her marriage. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the appointment of the more meritorious candidate was lawful and the petitioner lacked locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a woman automatically acquires the domicile of her husband upon marriage under the Succession Act, 1925?
  • Can a candidate's eligibility for a local-quota public post be established through her husband's domicile post-marriage?
  • Does a less meritorious candidate have the locus standi to challenge the appointment of a higher-scoring candidate who has legally acquired the requisite local domicile?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir Khan and 2 others vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government2015 PLJ AJ&K 165, 2015 CLC 769 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Shabir Khan & 2 others vs Aj&K Govt. through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2015 PLJ AJ&K 165 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Shabir Ali Mangerio & others vs Province of Sindh & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ismail and Farooq Ismail vs National Accountability BureauSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 1303 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain. vs The State & another.2015 LHC 4802 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-27
  cancellation of bailpost-arrest baildishonour of chequenon-prohibitory clausemisuse of baildiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondent had misused the concession of bail by tampering with evidence, specifically by allegedly removing the original cheque from the record, an act for which a separate case under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was registered. The core legal question was whether the discretion exercised by the lower court in granting bail was correct and whether sufficient grounds existed for its cancellation. The Court held that the offence fell within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. The Court affirmed that bail cancellation requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as a patently illegal or erroneous order resulting in a miscarriage of justice. As the respondent was appearing regularly and the tampering allegation remained unproven, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the necessary grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
  • Does an unproven allegation of tampering with evidence after the grant of bail constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs State, etc.2015 LHC 1303, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Noor Rahman and another2015 P Cr. L J 1651 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-19
  illegal dispossessionsupply of statementscursory statementscognizance of offencecriminal revisionprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the trial court overruling the petitioner's objections regarding the recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses whose cursory statements or copies under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not supplied before the framing of charge in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The core legal question concerned whether procedural irregularities in supplying documents or recording cursory statements before charge vitiate the trial or bar the examination of witnesses. The Islamabad High Court partly allowed the petition, holding that while entire proceedings cannot be vitiated merely due to improper framing of charge or cognizance errors under section 529 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court must properly observe codal formalities. The court laid down that where necessary procedures under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are bypassed, proceedings may be regularized by remanding the matter for proper recording of cursory statements or fresh investigation report by the concerned police officer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to supply copies of witness statements to the accused before the framing of charge vitiates the entire trial?
  • What is the applicable procedure for trials under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 when the statute is silent on procedural aspects?
  • Does an error in taking cognizance of an offence vitiate proceedings in good faith under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the trial court permit the recording of evidence of witnesses whose cursory statements were not recorded or provided prior to the commencement of trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain and another vs Muhammad Ali and 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 1105 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Bhutta vs General Manager Pakistan Railway etc.District Consumer Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State2015 LHC 4470 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-01
  murderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular accountdishonest improvementweapon recoverycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting from a trial court judgment dated 01.08.2001. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution established the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the inordinate delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination, the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, and the utility of unverified weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delays strongly suggested the occurrence was unwitnessed and that the ocular account suffered from major discrepancies, dishonest improvements, and a lack of credible source of light. Furthermore, the recovery of the crime weapon was inconsequential due to the absence of a forensic report. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, laying down that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR create an inference that an occurrence was unwitnessed?
  • Whether material and dishonest improvements by an eyewitness render their testimony unreliable without strong corroboration?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon inconsequential when it is not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State etc.2015 LHC 544 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11
  acid throwingretrospective application of lawfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidencescheduled offenseAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses involving acid throwing. The core legal questions were whether the appellant could be convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for an occurrence that predated the inclusion of the specific offense in the Act's schedule, and whether the conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable despite the acquittal of co-accused persons. The Court held that the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was unsustainable as the offense was not a scheduled offense at the time of the occurrence, citing the principle that penal laws cannot be applied retrospectively to enhance punishment. However, the Court upheld the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, finding that the specific role attributed to the appellant was distinct from the acquitted co-accused, and that the complainant's testimony, supported by medical evidence, was credible and sufficient for conviction. The key principle laid down is that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' does not have universal application, and courts must sift the grain from the chaff to determine the guilt of individual accused based on their specific roles.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for an offense committed before the offense was included in the Act's schedule?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons necessarily render the testimony of a complainant unreliable against a remaining accused with a specific attributed role?
  • Is the solitary statement of an injured complainant sufficient for conviction if supported by medical evidence?
  • Does the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' require the total rejection of a witness's testimony if parts of it are disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs Hashim and others2015 MLD 716 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-25
  pre-emptioncivil revisionMuhammadan LawTalb-i-MowasibatTalb-i-Ishhadconcurrent findingsShafi-i-jarShafi-i-khalit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which dismissed the applicant's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the applicant maintained his superior right of pre-emption—based on his status as an owner of adjoining land (Shafi-i-jar) and a participator in appendages (Shafi-i-khalit)—continuously from the date of sale until the decree was passed. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the applicant failed to prove his entitlement. Crucially, the court found that the applicant had divested himself of the land forming the basis of his pre-emption claim by gifting it to his sons during the pendency of the suit, thereby violating the requirement under Paragraph 233 of Muhammadan Law that the right of pre-emption must subsist until the decree is passed. Furthermore, the court found the evidence regarding the performance of the necessary pre-emption demands (Talb-i-Mowasibat and Talb-i-Ishhad) to be unreliable. The court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 absent material irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Must a pre-emptor maintain their right of pre-emption continuously from the date of sale until the decree is passed?
  • Can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically invalidate an appellate judgment?
  • Does the gifting of the property upon which a pre-emption claim is based during the pendency of the suit extinguish the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Sha Keel Aijaz vs Mst. Shakeela Naseem and 8 others2015 MLD 1360 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sh.Anwar Saeed vs L.D.a2015 LHC 1937 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →