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.

• Sh. Muhammad Rafique vs Sh. Muhammad Jameel2015 MLD 642 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-22
  benami transactionconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionburden of proofproperty ownershipproperty tax record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a concurrent judgment and decree whereby a suit for declaration, possession, and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent against his brother, the petitioner, was decreed. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner successfully established that the registered sale deed in favor of the respondent constituted a benami transaction and that the petitioner was the true owner in possession. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the essential legal parameters required to prove a benami transaction—namely, establishing the source of consideration, custody of the original title deed, possession, and the motive behind a benami arrangement—having only proven physical possession while failing to prove consideration or motive. The court reaffirmed that property tax records and utility bills do not constitute conclusive proof of ownership and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact as no misreading, perversity, or jurisdictional error was shown.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove a benami transaction under Pakistani law?
  • Whether property tax records and utility bills serve as conclusive proof of ownership?
  • Can superior courts interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a person alleging a benami transaction bear the burden of proving the source of consideration and motive?
  Read full judgment →
• SH. Khalid Mahmood, etc vs Province of Punjab, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Khalid Mahmood and otherss vs Province of Punjab and others2015 PLJ Lahore 293, 2015 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Altan Azmat vs Habib Bank Ltd., etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 335 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• SH. Abdul Waheed and another vs Saeed Qalbi etc.PL.J 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 739 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceprivate complaintappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the eyewitness account contradicted the medical evidence and the physical circumstances of the crime scene. The Court held that the prosecution's version was highly doubtful because the post-mortem report indicated the deceased suffered a frontal gunshot wound, contradicting the complainant’s claim that the appellant shot the deceased from behind. Furthermore, the unnatural conduct of the complainant and the presence of a weapon near the deceased’s body supported the defense's theory of self-defense by a third party. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that if a reasonable doubt exists regarding an accused's guilt, the benefit must be extended to the accused, as it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence contradicting the eyewitness account create reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case is based on an unnatural version of events?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the eyewitness testimony is inconsistent with the physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Aamar vs Superintending Engineer, etc.2015 LHC 1708 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-30
  Intra-Court Appealwrit jurisdictionmaintainabilityalternate efficacious remedyworkmantermination of servicelabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenges an order dismissing a writ petition filed by an employee seeking regularization and challenging his termination. The appellant, a work-charge employee, argued that his termination was unlawful and that he was entitled to regularization. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the appellant, as a workman, had an alternate efficacious remedy before the Labour Court. The core legal question was whether a workman whose services were terminated could invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or was required to exhaust remedies under the relevant labour laws. The Court held that the appellant's case fell under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, rather than the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellant had an alternate efficacious remedy under Standing Order 12(3) of the 1968 Ordinance. The Court affirmed the principle that where an adequate alternate remedy exists under special labour legislation, a writ petition is not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does a terminated employee have an alternate efficacious remedy under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when an alternate remedy is available under labour laws?
  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply to disputes arising under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Senate through Chairman vs Shahiq Ahmed Khan2015-SCP-76, 2016 PLJ SC 184, 2016 P.S.C. 450, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 629, 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-17
  civil servicepensionary benefitsvoid ab initiolocus poenitentiaestatutory bodycompetent authorityservice tribunalseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that granted pensionary benefits to the respondent, a former employee of National Construction Limited (NCL) absorbed into the Senate Secretariat. The core legal question was whether the notification dated 20.10.2004, which purportedly granted the respondent seniority based on his previous NCL service, was issued with lawful authority and whether it entitled him to pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court held that the notification was void ab initio as it lacked approval from the competent authority, the Chairman Senate. The Court further determined that the principle of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to validate fraudulent or unauthorized acts. Additionally, the Court clarified that service in a non-pensionable statutory body like NCL cannot be counted for pensionary benefits in a civil post. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, noting it was based on a misreading of the record, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect a void notification obtained through unauthorized means?
  • Is service rendered in a non-pensionable statutory body countable towards pensionary benefits in a civil service post?
  • Does a limitation period apply to the challenge of a void order or notification?
  • Can a notification issued without the approval of the competent authority be enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• Seemed Far Bukhari vs University of Punjab through Vice-Chancellor2015 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-26Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology and anothers vs Muhammad' Anwar Butt2015 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-09-09
  acting charge appointmentpensionary benefitslast pay certificateservice rulesregular promotioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court which disposed of a writ petition filed by the respondent regarding pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether an employee appointed to a higher post on an acting charge basis without fulfilling mandatory statutory requirements and recommendations can claim pensionary benefits based on that higher pay scale upon retirement. The Supreme Court held that an acting charge appointment does not amount to regular promotion, does not confer a vested right to regular promotion or higher benefits, and cannot be regularized merely by the lapse of time or without adherence to the applicable service rules. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, establishing that pensionary benefits must be calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn in the regular pay scale, and that acting charge appointments made in violation of statutory prerequisites are invalid for granting higher financial or pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment on an acting charge basis to a higher post amount to promotion on a regular basis for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits?
  • Can an acting charge appointment confer any vested right to regular promotion or higher pay scales upon retirement?
  • Whether the lapse of time can regularize an invalid acting charge appointment made without the recommendation of the competent selection board?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology and another vs Muhammad Anwar Butt2015 PLC (C.S.) 405, 2015 SCMR 106, 2015 PLJ SC 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-09-09
  acting charge appointmentpensionary benefitsservice lawbasic pay scaleregularization of servicestatutory ruleslast pay certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment directing the department to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent based on Basic Scale (BS)-20, despite the respondent having retired while holding that post only on an acting charge basis. The core legal question was whether an employee appointed on an acting charge basis to a higher post without fulfilling statutory requirements, specifically the recommendation of the Selection Board, is entitled to pensionary benefits calculated at that higher scale. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s appointment to BS-20 was invalid as it lacked the requisite Selection Board recommendation and violated the governing service rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the respondent was only entitled to pensionary benefits based on his regular substantive pay scale (BS-19). The key principle laid down is that an acting charge appointment is a temporary, stop-gap arrangement that does not confer a vested right to regular promotion or seniority, nor does it entitle the appointee to pensionary benefits of the higher post if the appointment was made in violation of statutory procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment on an acting charge basis confer a vested right to regular promotion or seniority?
  • Can an employee claim pensionary benefits of a higher post held on an acting charge basis if the appointment was made in violation of statutory rules?
  • Does the mere lapse of time in holding a post on an acting charge basis result in the regularization of that appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Local Government Department vs The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department and 269 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-03-31
  pension restorationcommutation of pensioncivil servantsvested rightsperiodic increaseservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitiondiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals and petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the Government of Punjab against judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether retired civil servants, upon the restoration of their commuted pension after the expiry of the 15-year commutation period, were entitled to receive the full pension inclusive of periodic increases granted by the government during that commuted period. The Government contended that such increases were matters of executive policy and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that pension is a vested legal right under Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and not a bounty. Interpreting Rule 8.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, the Court ruled that 'restoration' means re-vesting the full right to pension, placing the retiree at par with those who never commuted. Denying periodic increases to such retirees constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the retirees' entitlement to the increases.

  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Aftab Ahmed Manika and others2015 PSC 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servantspromotionCentral Selection Boardcompetent authorityterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionfitness for promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two civil petitions filed by the Secretary, Establishment Division, challenging judgments of the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court that had set aside the Prime Minister's decision to return recommendations of the Central Selection Board regarding the promotion of certain civil servants from BPS-20 to BPS-21. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution in view of the Federal Service Tribunal's bar concerning fitness for promotion, and the extent of the Prime Minister's powers as the competent appointing authority to disagree with or return the recommendations of the Central Selection Board. The Supreme Court held that while the High Courts had jurisdiction to examine the exercise of the appointing authority's power because promotion fitness falls outside the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Prime Minister's powers under the relevant statutory framework are unfettered, and recommendations of the Selection Board are advisory rather than binding. The Court established that the competent authority may return promotion recommendations for reconsideration in exceptional circumstances based on available material, provided the Board evaluates the cases independently without being influenced by prior observations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Are the recommendations of the Central Selection Board binding upon the competent appointing authority?
  • To what extent can the Prime Minister return recommendations for promotion to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Communication2015 CLC 649 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-07Read full judgment →
• Secretary Sindhi Adbi Board, Jamshoro and another vs Mirza Dabeer2015 PLC (C.S.) 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-12-16
  service matterappointment authorityregularizationSindhi Adbi Boardadministrative lawultra virespublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment directing the Sindhi Adbi Board to pay the respondent a salary corresponding to BPS-16. The respondent, initially appointed as a Calligrapher on contract, was later regularized as an Incharge Proof Reader in BPS-9. Subsequently, the Minister of Education, acting as Chairman of the Board, unilaterally upgraded the respondent to BPS-16. The core legal question was whether the Chairman possessed the authority to make such appointments or regularizations under the Board's constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Chairman lacked the legal competence to unilaterally appoint or regularize employees, as the Board’s constitution explicitly vests such powers in the Board as a collective body. The Court emphasized that appointments must be made by the designated authority to ensure transparency and prevent nepotism, favoritism, or arbitrary decision-making. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, declaring the Chairman's directive without lawful authority, while directing the Board to reconsider the respondent's grievance regarding his BPS-9 status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chairman of the Sindhi Adbi Board possess the authority to unilaterally appoint or regularize employees in BPS-16?
  • Is an appointment order issued by an authority lacking the power to do so under the governing constitution legally valid?
  • Must appointments and regularizations in a statutory body be made by the specific body designated by its constitution to prevent arbitrary decision-making?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Establishment Division; Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2015 PLC (C.S.) 1367, 2015 SCMR 1006, 2015 PLJ SC 687, 2015 NLR Service 107, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-22
  civil servants promotioncentral selection boardcompetent authorityadvisory recommendationsservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional writ petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from judgments of the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the Prime Minister's decision returning recommendations of the Central Selection Board regarding the promotion of certain civil servants from BPS-20 to BPS-21. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution given the bar on service matters, and the extent of the Prime Minister's powers as the competent authority to disagree with or return recommendations made by the Central Selection Board. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that while the High Courts had jurisdiction to examine the exercise of the appointing authority's power because fitness for promotion is excluded from the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction, the recommendations of the Central Selection Board are merely advisory and not binding upon the Prime Minister. The Court laid down that the competent authority possesses unfettered powers to accept, reject, or refer back promotion recommendations for reconsideration in exceptional circumstances, provided such discretion is exercised fairly and without arbitrariness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Are the recommendations of the Central SelectionBoard binding upon the Prime Minister as the appointing authority under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can the competent authority return recommendations for promotion to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
  • What is the extent of the powers of the Prime Minister in disagreeing with the recommendations of the Central Selection Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Establishment Division,Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2015 NLR Service 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servants promotionCentral Selection Boardpowers of Prime Ministerfitness and eligibilitybar of jurisdictionService Tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionrecommendations
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from judgments of the Islamabad and Lahore High Courts which had maintained writ petitions filed by civil servants serving in BPS-20 whose promotion recommendations to BPS-21 by the Central Selection Board were returned for reconsideration by the Prime Minister. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution regarding promotion matters and the extent of the Prime Minister's powers as the appointing authority to disagree with or return recommendations made by the Central Selection Board under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Courts' judgments, holding that the jurisdiction of the High Court was not barred under Article 212 since fitness for promotion is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, but further holding that the Prime Minister's powers as the competent authority to return recommendations for reconsideration are unfettered and not strictly bound by the recommendations of the Board. The key principle laid down is that while promotion recommendations by the Selection Board are entitled to respect, the appointing authority retains the discretionary power in exceptional circumstances to return recommendations for reconsideration without its powers being restricted solely to procedural or compositional flaws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Are the recommendations of the Central Selection Board binding upon the Prime Minister as the competent appointing authority?
  • Does the Prime Minister have the power to return promotion recommendations to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
  • What is the extent of judicial review over the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in disagreeing with promotion recommendations?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2015 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-22
  civil service promotioncentral selection boardcompetent authority discretionfitness for promotionwrit jurisdictionservice tribunal jurisdictionadvisory recommendations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Secretary Establishment Division against judgments of the Islamabad and Lahore High Courts, which had set aside the Prime Minister's decision to return recommendations of the Central Selection Board (CSB) regarding the promotion of civil servants from BPS-20 to BPS-21. The core legal questions were whether the High Courts had jurisdiction to entertain these petitions despite Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the Prime Minister, as the competent authority, is bound by the CSB's recommendations or possesses the discretion to return them for reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that while the High Courts have jurisdiction to examine the exercise of power by the competent authority regarding promotion fitness—as this falls outside the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction—the Prime Minister’s powers are not unfettered but include the discretion to return recommendations. The Court ruled that the CSB's recommendations are advisory, not binding. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Courts' judgments, dismissed the respondents' petitions, and directed the CSB to re-examine the cases independently, uninfluenced by the Prime Minister's previous observations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the fitness of a civil servant for promotion given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Are the recommendations of the Central Selection Board binding upon the Prime Minister as the competent authority?
  • Does the competent authority have the power to return promotion recommendations to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
  • Is the determination of fitness for promotion a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyar vs The State2015 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-12
  narcotics controlconscious possessionburden of proofstatutory presumptionbenefit of doubtrent-a-carcriminal appealrecovery of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a common trial wherein the appellants were convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of 15 kilograms of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved the evaluation of conscious possession, the burden of proof under special narcotics legislation versus general criminal law when a special plea of innocence is raised, and the evidentiary value of belated circumstantial evidence linking a non-occupant hirer to the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that while the driver apprehended red-handed failed to rebut the statutory presumption of possession and accountability, the case against the co-appellant—implicated solely through a rent-a-car receipt and delayed witness statements—suffered from fatal gaps and doubts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal of the driver, upholding his conviction, but allowed the appeal of the co-appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory presumption under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 shift the burden of proof to the accused to account satisfactorily for the possession of narcotics?
  • Can an accused person's uncorroborated statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as conclusive proof to convict a co-accused?
  • Whether the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 via section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 validates searches conducted without public witnesses?
  • Is a single dent or reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused charged with an offense carrying capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Dilawar Jan and 2 others vs Meftah Uddin and 3 others2015 MLD 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-25
  rejection of plaintres judicatacivil revisionfinality of judgmentvexatious litigationproperty disputeCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute over property ownership and possession. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which the respondents challenged by filing an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the matter was already adjudicated. The trial court initially dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed this decision, rejecting the plaint. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and the statutory finality of previous judgments regarding the same property. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, holding that the suit was clearly barred by law given the history of previous litigation and a prior compromise. The court affirmed that when a matter has been finally resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the trial court to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, to prevent futile litigation and avoid vexing parties twice, rather than proceeding to a full trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit barred by law if the subject matter has already been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation?
  • Does the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandate the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, to prevent futile trials?
  • Can a party challenge a previous judgment and decree through a fresh suit for declaration rather than utilizing the procedure under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company Limited vs B.A.2015 LHC 6342 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saud Nasir Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan and othersSindh High Court · -
  constitutional petitiondemotionindefinite penaltyRemoval from Service Ordinanceservice tribunalmisconductdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of demotion to a lower pay grade following disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by Pakistan Steel. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against Pakistan Steel and the legality of imposing a penalty of reduction in rank for an indefinite period. The Sindh High Court held that the constitutional petition is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for employees of state-owned corporations proceeded against under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Court further held that while the departmental inquiry and finding of guilt were lawful, a penalty of demotion or reduction to a lower grade cannot be awarded for an indefinite period and must specify a definite duration. The Court accordingly modified the petitioner's penalty to a fixed period of two years.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against a state-owned organization like Pakistan Steel when proceedings are taken under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Can a penalty of reduction in rank or demotion be legally imposed for an indefinite period without specifying a definite duration?
  • Does lack of proper care and vigilance always constitute willful misconduct inviting severe punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan alias Lala vs The State and another2015 MLD 921 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondencewajtakkar evidencedelayed FIRdouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of abduction and double murder under Sections 365-B and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that his sister and niece were abducted and later found murdered. The prosecution relied on unnatural conduct of delayed eyewitness statements, wajtakkar (last seen) evidence, and the petitioner's unexplained abscondence for over a year. The Lahore High Court observed that the alleged eyewitnesses, despite being close relatives and residing in the same village, offered no explanation for remaining silent for two days. Furthermore, the wajtakkar witness testimony conflicted with the medical officer's post-mortem timeline regarding the estimated time of death. The court reaffirmed the established rule that wajtakkar evidence is inherently weak and easily manufactured. Addressing abscondence, the court held that mere abscondence cannot impede or defeat an accused's statutory right to bail if the case otherwise falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere abscondence deprive an accused of bail if their case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Can uncorroborated wajtakkar evidence that conflicts with medical time of death be relied upon to refuse bail?
  • Does the unexplained silence of close relative eyewitnesses for two days justify granting bail on grounds of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar and others vs State and others2015 PLJ SC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  private complaintsummonspre-arrest bailCode of Criminal Procedurebond for appearancerestraintSection 204 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses the procedural requirements for an accused person summoned by a trial court in a private complaint case. The core legal question was whether an accused summoned under Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must apply for pre-arrest bail under Section 498, or if they are merely required to furnish a bond for appearance under Section 91. The Supreme Court held that the previous view requiring bail applications in all such instances was incorrect. The Court ruled that when a court issues a summons under Section 204, it does not inherently place the accused under restraint; therefore, the accused is primarily required to execute a bond under Section 91 for future appearance. The Court established that Section 91 and Section 497/498 serve distinct purposes. While the issuance of a warrant may imply restraint necessitating bail, a summons does not. Failure to furnish a bond under Section 91 may lead to temporary custody, but this is a procedural measure to ensure compliance, not an arrest for the offence itself.

  Questions settled

  • Does the summoning of an accused person by a trial court under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically necessitate an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the execution of a bond under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient for an accused person summoned by a court in a private complaint case?
  • Does the issuance of a summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a restraint on liberty sufficient to trigger the requirement for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ali Khan and others vs Mst. Shehnaz Parveen2015 LHC 2400 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16
  civil revisioninheritance disputeadmissibility of documentsremand of caseproduction of scribeobjections to evidenceparentage dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a consolidated judgment and decree whereby the appellate court set aside the trial court's dismissal and decreed three suits filed by the respondent claiming a share in the legacy of the deceased as a daughter. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of unproven documents tendered through counsel without producing their scribes or signatories, and the failure of the trial court to adjudicate upon objections raised against those documents. The Lahore High Court held that documents tendered by counsel without producing their respective scribes or signatories cannot be received or read in evidence, and that the trial court is under a mandatory duty to decide objections raised against the admissibility of documents. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, accepted the civil revision, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after determining the objections and allowing the parties proper opportunities.

  Questions settled

  • Can documents tendered in evidence by a counsel without producing their scribe or signatory be read in evidence?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to decide objections raised by the opposing party against the tendering of documents?
  • Does the trial court possess inherent powers to summon necessary witnesses for the proper adjudication of a case involving inheritance and parentage?
  • When should a higher court remand a matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Khan & others vs Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 200 · Federal Service Tribunal
  Generation AllowanceWAPDAService Tribunallocus poenitentiaepolicy decisiondiscriminationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves 260 consolidated service appeals filed by WAPDA security staff challenging the discontinuation of a 'Generation Allowance' previously granted to them. The core legal questions were whether the withdrawal of this allowance was discriminatory and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae prevented the Authority from rescinding a benefit once granted. The Tribunal held that the appellants, being security personnel stationed outside the power generation areas, were not entitled to the allowance, which was reserved for technical staff directly involved in electricity generation. The Tribunal ruled that the initial grant of the allowance was an inadvertent error, and therefore, the principle of locus poenitentiae did not apply, as no vested right can be created through an illegal order. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed that it should not interfere in the policy decisions of the Authority regarding financial allowances. The appeals were dismissed, though the Tribunal ordered that the allowance already paid to the appellants should not be recovered, making the withdrawal effective only prospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to the withdrawal of a benefit granted inadvertently through an illegal order?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal empowered to interfere in the policy decisions of the WAPDA Authority regarding the grant of financial allowances?
  • Can employees who are not engaged in generation duties claim entitlement to a Generation Allowance based on the principle of equality?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Hussain lodged vs NotSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquiryextra-judicial confessionrecovery witnesscommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal matter where the applicant sought post-arrest bail for an offence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether, given the absence of eyewitnesses, the failure to examine the primary informant, the lack of specific attribution of a role to the applicant, and the inadmissibility of a police-recorded confession, the case warranted further inquiry for the purpose of bail. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient connection between the applicant and the crime. It observed that the primary witness was not cited in the charge sheet, the alleged confession was inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the recovery of the weapon lacked independent witnesses as required by law. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution fails to collect sufficient incriminating evidence or corroborate extra-judicial confessions made in police custody, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made before the police while in custody admissible as evidence?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery invalidate the recovery proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to cite the primary informant as a witness in the charge sheet?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Hydel Development Organization (Shydo) through Managing2015 MLD 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-06Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority, Peshawar vs H Nadir Khan and others2015 YLR 1373 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority through its Chairman vs Syed Muhammad2015 PLC (C.S.) 1353, 2015 PLJ SC 725, 2015 P.S.C. 1015, 2015 SCMR 1060, KLR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-25
  service mattermaster and servantstatutory ruleslocus standipromotion disputeunstructured discretionSarhad Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the promotion of an officer within the Sarhad Development Authority. The core legal questions were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters of the Authority's employees, given the contention that the Sarhad Development Authority (Appointment of Employees) Rules, 1977 were non-statutory and the relationship was governed by the principle of master and servant, and whether the Authority had standing to challenge the High Court's decision regarding an inter-se promotion dispute. The Supreme Court held that the Authority lacked locus standi to challenge a judgment resolving a promotion dispute between two individuals, as the Authority is bound by its own rules. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Government had failed to frame statutory rules under Section 29 of the Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1973, leading to unstructured discretion in service matters. The Court directed the Government to comply with its statutory rule-making obligations within three months. The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sarhad Development Authority have the locus standi to challenge a High Court judgment resolving a promotion dispute between two of its employees?
  • Is the Sarhad Development Authority bound by its own internal rules regarding the promotion of its employees?
  • Does the failure of the Government to frame rules under Section 29 of the Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1973, justify the exercise of unstructured discretion in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority through Chairman vs Syed Muhammad2015 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-25
  PromotionLocus StandiDiscretionary JurisdictionService RulesUnstructured DiscretionDepartmental Promotion CommitteeManagerial Cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and struck down the notification of promotion of respondent No. 9 to the post of General Manager (Administration) (BS-19). The core legal issues pertained to whether the statutory authority possessed locus standi to challenge a decision resolving a promotion dispute between two officers, and the legal implications of the provincial government's prolonged failure to frame statutory rules under Section 29 of the Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declining leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioner-Authority had no locus standi to assail the High Court judgment because the promotion dispute was between two individuals and the directly aggrieved officer had not appealed. Furthermore, the Court directed the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to frame the requisite statutory rules under Section 29 within three months to prevent unstructured discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer authority have locus standi to challenge a court judgment that resolves a promotion dispute between two of its employees when the affected employee does not appeal?
  • Can the Supreme Court decline discretionary leave to appeal under Article 185(3) where interference would perpetuate injustice?
  • Is a statutory authority bound to follow its own internal administrative rules categorizing service cadres in the absence of formally notified statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 6 others vs The State2015 YLR 2585 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-09
  criminal appealanti-terrorismunlawful assemblymob violenceconfessional statementocular evidencecommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for rioting, mischief, assault, and terrorism-related offences arising from an incident where a large mob gathered, protested, attacked a police station, and set fire to government property. The core legal question is whether mere presence in an unlawful assembly or vague ocular and circumstantial evidence, alongside inadmissible confessional statements, is sufficient to sustain convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court held that the prosecution failed to attribute specific overt acts or roles to the individual appellants, that the eye-witnesses gave contradictory testimony implicating persons who were later acquitted or discharged, that the circumstantial evidence and medical reports did not connect the appellants to the crimes, and that confessional statements recorded under section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act were inadmissible. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that presence in a mob without proof of active participation or specific criminal attribution cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere presence of an accused person in an unlawful assembly sufficient to convict them for substantive offences committed by the mob without proof of an active role?
  • Are confessional statements recorded under section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act admissible and relevant against an accused when procedural safeguards and timely recording are absent?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when the ocular and circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution contains material contradictions and fails to consistently implicate the appellants?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Safu etc. The State vs The State Sarfraz alias Safu etc.2015 LHC 2285 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16
  benefit of doubtidentification paradeocular evidencecriminal appealmurder referencedishonest improvementreasonable doubtpolice manipulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against convictions and sentences, including the death penalty, and a Murder Reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for murder, attempted murder, and other offences following a house-breaking incident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on identification parade evidence, ocular testimony, and alleged recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to dishonest improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses, inordinate and unexplained delays in recording statements, and the unreliability of the identification parade, which was compromised by police manipulation. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence regarding recoveries and the testimony of the 'Wajj Takkar' witnesses to be fabricated or inconsistent. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants by extending them the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness who makes glaring contradictions and improvements in their court statement compared to their initial statement to the police remain a reliable witness?
  • Is the delay in recording the statement of a witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case if left unexplained?
  • Can an identification parade be relied upon if the accused were shown to witnesses or their photographs were provided by the police prior to the parade?
  • Does the presence of injuries on an injured witness serve as an absolute stamp of truthfulness for their entire testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Kaka vs The State and another2015 LHC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-10
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaynarcoticsdangerous criminalcontributory delayControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 48.165 kilograms of charas and 2 kilograms of opium. The primary ground urged for bail was the delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court examined the trial court record and observed that multiple adjournments were sought or caused by the petitioner and his defense counsel, establishing that the delay was attributable to the petitioner himself. The Court held that an accused who contributes to the delay in trial cannot claim statutory bail as a matter of right. Furthermore, the Court held that a person accused of dealing in large quantities of narcotics falls within the category of a 'dangerous criminal' under the exceptions to statutory delay-based bail provisions, disentitling them to relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who contributes to the delay in the conclusion of a trial can claim bail on statutory grounds?
  • Does a person accused of trafficking large quantities of narcotics qualify as a 'dangerous criminal' disentitled to statutory bail?
  • What is the effect of defense-requested adjournments on the calculation of statutory delay for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali Sangi vs The State2015 MLD 1430 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-11
  bank fraudembezzlementforgeryhandwriting expertcriminal breach of trustcorruptioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi, whereby the appellant, a bank employee, was convicted under sections 409, 471, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant embezzled funds from various bank account holders, forged signatures and thumb impressions, and fraudulently withdrew cash through fake cheques. Upon a thorough reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, including the categorical depositions of bank officials, affected account holders, and the report of the handwriting expert, the High Court held that the prosecution fully established the charges against the appellant. The appellate court ruled that a mere uncorroborated plea of political victimization taken under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot outweigh consistent, confidence-inspiring prosecution evidence supported by expert forensic verification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank employee can be convicted for criminal breach of trust and forgery based on uncredited deposit slips and matching expert handwriting analysis?
  • Does a bare plea of political victimization raised in a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suffice to rebut robust documentary and oral evidence?
  • Whether the testimony of account holders regarding uncredited cash deposits, corroborated by bank officials and forensic reports, is sufficient to prove bank embezzlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed Syed Arif Raza vs Chairman NAB & Others NAB & AnotherSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed Luhur vs NotSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausebenefit of doubtillegal trafficking of womenkidnappingindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Sarfraz Ahmed Luhur, who was charged under Sections 371-A and 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Crime No. 106/2013 registered at Police Station Market, Larkana. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the contradictions in the prosecution's case, lack of independent witnesses, and questions regarding the applicability of the penal provisions. The Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting contradictions regarding the place of arrest, absence of private witnesses despite a populated location, and lack of medical evidence or recovery from a brothel to substantiate the charges. The Court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of material creating reasonable doubt regarding the applicant's complicity entitles them to bail, even for offences falling within the prohibitory clause, and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between the police report and press reports regarding the place of arrest create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the non-joining of independent witnesses from a populated area during an alleged spot arrest cast doubt on the prosecution case for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted in offences falling within the prohibitory clause when reasonable grounds appear to exist questioning the accused's complicity?
  • Whether the absence of medical evidence or recovery from a brothel undermines the ingredients of offences under Sections 371-A and 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan vs Syed Hassan Jaffar2015 YLR 2504 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shujat. vs D.P.O. etc.2015 LHC 2884 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shujat vs D.P.O. Okara and others2015 LHC 2884, 2015 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Saeed Ahmad Khan etc. vs Appellate Authority etc.2015 LHC 7350 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Nisar vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Province of Punjab through Sub-Registrar2015 PLJ Lahore 1076, 2015 LHC 5952 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Province of Punjab etc.2015 LHC 5952 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Umar vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2015 LHC 7402 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Razzaq s_o Muhammad Khan, r_o village Jandrot Baglia_f3c12f052015-SC AJK-91 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Naseem vs The State2015 LHC 3423 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-11
  assets beyond meanscorruption and corrupt practicesbenami transactionsbenamidar noticenational accountability bureauburden of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant, a former junior clerk, was convicted under sections 9 and 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 for holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine and forfeiture of properties. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established that the properties acquired in the names of the appellant's family members were benami transactions funded by the appellant, and whether the trial court evaluated the appellant's known sources of income over his long service career. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the properties were benami, noted that no statutory notices were issued to the alleged benamidars prior to confiscation as mandated by law, and observed that the trial court completely omitted any discussion of the appellant's salary, savings, and legitimate income over 41 years of service. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that in asset-beyond-means cases, the prosecution must first properly establish the accused's known sources of income and provide mandatory notice and hearing to alleged benamidars before confiscation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is required to establish the known sources of income of an accused before recording a conviction for possessing assets disproportionate to such sources?
  • Is the issuance of notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to alleged benamidars mandatory prior to the confiscation of properties in corruption references?
  • Does the non-appearance of alleged benamidars as defense witnesses substitute for the mandatory legal notice required to be issued to them in accountability proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan vs Returning Officer, PP-12, etc.2015 PLJ SC 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-22
  election petitionamendment of pleadingsverification of election petitionprinciple of substitutionprinciple of mergerreturned candidatedisqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an election dispute regarding PP-12, Rawalpindi, where the runner-up challenged the returned candidate's election via an election petition. The appellant later sought and was granted permission to amend the petition by adding two new grounds challenging the respondent's educational qualifications and election expenses. However, the amended election petition was not duly verified in accordance with the law. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition for lack of proper verification under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether an amended election petition merges into the original petition or replaces it through substitution, and whether failure to verify the amended petition attracts penal consequences. The Supreme Court held that the principle of substitution applies rather than merger; an amended pleading replaces the original one, and the amended election petition must be independently verified. Having failed to properly verify the amended petition, the petition was rightly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that amendments to pleadings substitute rather than merge into prior pleadings, requiring independent verification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amended pleading merges into the original pleading or is governed by the principle of substitution?
  • Does the failure to verify an amended election petition attract dismissal under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
  • Can an election petitioner fall back on the original unamended petition after filing an unverified amended petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan vs Returning Officer, PP-12 and others2015 PLJ SC 862, 2015 P.S.C. 1205, 2015 SCMR 1698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-22
  election petitionamendment of pleadingsverification of petitionsummary dismissalprinciple of substitutioneducational qualificationselection expensesRepresentation of the People Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of an election petition by the Election Tribunal. The appellant, a runner-up in the PP-12 Rawalpindi general election, initially filed a verified election petition. He subsequently obtained leave to amend the petition to include substantial new grounds regarding the returned candidate's educational qualifications and election expenses. However, the amended petition was neither verified nor attested as required by law. The core legal question was whether the lack of verification in an amended petition attracts the penal consequences of dismissal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and whether the original petition survives the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the principle of substitution, rather than merger, applies to amended pleadings; once a pleading is amended, it replaces the original. Consequently, the amended petition must independently satisfy the mandatory verification requirements of Section 55(3). Failure to verify the amended petition rendered it liable to summary dismissal under Section 63 of the Act. The Court further ruled that an appellant cannot revert to the original petition once it has been substituted.

  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Jahangir vs Judge Family Court and 2 others2015 PLJ Islamabad 79, 2015 CLC 990 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan vs Election Tribunal, Azad Jammu and Kashmir at Rawlakot and 13 others2015 CLC 1360 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan vs Election Tribunal, Azad Jammu & Kashmir and 13 others2015 CLC 1360, 2015 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 453 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mai vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary and 22015 PLC (C.S.) 1022 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-18
  constitutional petitionfundamental rightscompensation packagemartyrsequality before lawjudicial reviewQumi Razakars
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by the widow of a deceased Qumi Razakar seeking implementation of a compensation package announced by the Chief Minister for security personnel martyred in the line of duty. The core legal question addressed is whether the state can lawfully discriminate in awarding compensation between members of the regular police force and Qumi Razakars who have similarly laid down their lives in the line of duty, and whether such discrimination violates fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that classifying the blood of martyrs into different categories for compensation is a gross violation of Islamic injunctions and fundamental rights guaranteeing equality before law and equal protection of law. The Court ruled that state functionaries cannot withhold announced compensation packages and directed the immediate implementation of the Chief Minister's directive, including payment of compensation and provision of employment to an adult family member. The key principle laid down is that state functionaries cannot arbitrarily discriminate between different classes of personnel who sacrifice their lives in the line of duty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether differential compensation awarded to dependents of regular police force members versus Qumi Razakars who died in the line of duty violates Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court exercise judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to enforce a public announcement and directive issued by the Chief Minister regarding financial compensation for martyrs?
  • Whether state functionaries can discriminate in granting compensation to families of personnel who sacrificed their lives to protect citizens?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Jahangir vs Judge Family Court & 2 others2015 PLJ Islamabad 79 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain Babak, Member of Provincial Assembly, KPK_Parliamentary Leader of Anp and anothers vs Government of K.P_K. through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat Peshawar and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 282 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain Babak and anothers vs Government of Khyber2015 PLJ Peshawar 282, 2015 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-12
  Local Government Actnon-party electionsconstitutional interpretationdevolution of powerjudicial reviewlocus standifundamental rightspresumption of constitutionality
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, specifically contesting the non-party basis of elections for Village and Neighbourhood Councils and the oversight powers granted to the Local Government Commission and the Chief Minister. They argued these provisions violated Article 140A (devolution of power) and Article 17 (freedom of association) of the Constitution. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Act was enacted in a bona fide manner and remained within constitutional bounds. The Court clarified that the term "political" in Article 140A does not mandate that local government elections must be held on a party basis. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle that there is a strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality of legislative enactments, and courts should lean towards saving legislation rather than striking it down. It concluded that the legislature possesses the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights and that the administrative oversight mechanisms provided in the Act were not unconstitutional.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for local government elections to be held on a non-party basis violate Article 17 of the Constitution?
  • Is the term 'political' in Article 140A of the Constitution synonymous with political parties?
  • Can a court attribute mala fide intentions to the legislature when reviewing the constitutionality of an Act?
  • Are members of a Provincial Assembly considered 'aggrieved persons' with locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of a provincial law under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aminullah Khan, Director General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 2 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court
  contractual appointmentprobation periodmaster and servanttermination of serviceconstitutional petitionreinstatementwrongful dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Director General of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority on a three-year contract with a one-year probation period, challenged his termination via a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee, serving within the probation period, could be terminated without assigning reasons or conducting formal proceedings. The Court held that the termination was valid, as the appointment order explicitly allowed for termination without reason during the probation period, provided one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof was given. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from those of regular employees, noting that contractual appointments are governed by the specific terms of the contract. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that where a contract provides for termination without cause, the employer is not required to conduct an inquiry unless the termination is based on allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the master-servant principle, holding that a contractual employee cannot seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction and must instead pursue damages in an appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee be terminated during the probation period without assigning any reason?
  • Is a formal inquiry required for the termination of a contractual employee during probation if no misconduct is alleged?
  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition under the master-servant rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aminullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2015 PLJ Peshawar 37, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1506 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20
  contract employeeprobation periodtermination of contractmaster and servantconstitutional petitionshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification terminating his contract appointment as Director General of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority prior to the expiry of his three-year term, arguing that the termination during probation without a show-cause notice, reason, or disciplinary proceedings was illegal. The core legal question was whether a person employed on a contract with a probation period can be terminated without assigning reasons in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a contractual employee's terms expressly permit termination without assigning reasons upon notice or pay in lieu thereof, and the termination is not founded on misconduct, a regular inquiry or show-cause notice is not required. The court also noted that the master-and-servant principle applies to such employment, barring reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that contractual employees governed by specific terms allowing termination during probation can be terminated in accordance with those terms without formal proceedings unless the termination is for misconduct, and that wrongful termination of such service does not warrant reinstatement via constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person employed on contract can be terminated during the period of probation without assigning any reason for the same?
  • Does termination of a contract employee during probation without alleging misconduct require a regular inquiry or show-cause notice?
  • Can an employee whose services are governed by the master-and-servant principle seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Amin Farooqui vs The Chairman NAB & anotherSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sardar Amin Farooqi and others vs Director, Intelligence & Investigation-Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Ayyub2015 YLR 1649 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-01
  recovery suitpromissory notenegotiable instrumentleave to defendex parte decreepresumption of consideration
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajanpur, dismissing the appellant's recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of a promissory note. The core legal question was whether a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be decreed when the defendant fails to obtain leave to defend, and whether presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding consideration apply. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of an application for leave to defend, the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree without even needing to lead ex parte evidence, and that consideration is presumed under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless rebutted. The court set aside the trial court's dismissal, allowed the appeal, and decreed the suit with interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the defendant fails to file an application for leave to defend?
  • Does a promissory note carry a presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 unless rebutted?
  • Is it necessary for a plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the defendant is proceeded against ex parte without seeking leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqlain Asad vs The State and 4 others2015 YLR 698 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-06
  transfer of criminal casesection 526 Cr.P.C.jurisdictionTehsil Headquarters trialDistrict HeadquartersHigh Court notificationconvenience of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioner, Saqlain Asad, seeking the transfer of a murder case arising from FIR No. 67/2013 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghazi Abad, Chichawatni, from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni. The core legal question revolved around the legality of the Sessions Judge's order transferring the trial to the District Headquarters based on a High Court notification and an accused's request. The Lahore High Court held that the Sessions Judge misconstrued Notification No. 7886-RHC/MIT dated 25th May 1999, which only grants an accused an option to be tried at a Tehsil Headquarters exercisable before the Magistrate at the initial stage, and does not permit transferring a case from a Tehsil to a District Headquarters. The Court ruled that general convenience of parties, the location of the crime scene at Chichawatni, and the absence of evidence supporting the accused's threat apprehensions warranted the retransfer of the trial to Chichawatni.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Judge can transfer a criminal trial from a Tehsil Headquarters to a District Headquarters based on Notification No. 7886-RHC/MIT dated 25-5-1999?
  • At what stage must an accused exercise the option to be tried at a Tehsil Headquarters under the relevant High Court notification?
  • Does an unsubstantiated apprehension of danger by an accused constitute a valid ground for the transfer of a criminal case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Raza vs The State2015 MLD 515 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-18
  bail applicationstatutory delayfundamental right to fair trialexpeditious trialunder-trial prisonercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought bail in a case involving charges under sections 353, 324, 392, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing inordinate delay in the trial process. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail when the trial court failed to conclude proceedings despite repeated directives from the High Court to do so within a stipulated timeframe. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. It reasoned that an expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right of an accused person. Where the delay in the disposal of a case is not attributable to the accused, and the trial court fails to comply with judicial directions to expedite the trial, the accused cannot be detained indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner. The Court emphasized that the object of criminal prosecution is to bring the accused to justice speedily, not to punish them through prolonged incarceration without trial. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial court fails to conclude the trial within the timeframe directed by the High Court?
  • Does the right to an expeditious trial constitute a fundamental right of an accused person?
  • Can an accused be detained indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner when the delay in the trial is not attributable to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Pal vs Mst. Beenish Khushnud etc2015 LHC 5772 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
• Saqib Mukhtar vs Syed Muhammad Sabtain Bukhari, etc.2015 LHC 5002 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-27
  quashing of proceedingsprivate complaintHadood ordinancetheft liable to haddmandatory procedureacquittalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashing of proceedings in a private complaint under section 17 of The Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as well as the setting aside of an order dismissing his application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for acquittal. The core legal question concerned whether the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 7 of The Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979—specifically that the statement of the victim or an authorized person must be recorded first—was violated when a complaint was filed by a person who was neither the victim nor authorized. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to consider this mandatory requirement and the binding precedent holding that a victim must first make a claim. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the acquittal application afresh in light of the statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 7 of The Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 regarding the recording of the statement of the victim are mandatory?
  • Can a private complaint under The Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 be maintained if filed by a person who is neither the victim nor authorized by the victim?
  • Is a trial court obligated to evaluate compliance with statutory procedural prerequisites when deciding an application for acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sandoz Pak Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and OthersNLR 2015 Tax 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-01-23Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Zia Ullah etc.2015 LHC 3596 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-IshhadZar-e-Soemcivil revisionburden of proofstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal questions concerned whether the plaintiff had strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of Talbs—specifically Talb-i-Muwathibat, Talb-i-Ishhad, and Talb-i-Khusumat—as prescribed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, and whether the suit was maintainable given the failure to deposit the correct Zar-e-Soem. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat due to material inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the presence of witnesses at the time of the demand. Furthermore, the Court found that the suit was filed prematurely, as the plaintiff failed to establish the service of Talb-i-Ishhad or a denial by the defendants prior to filing. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to deposit the requisite Zar-e-Soem corresponding to the actual sale price. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that strict adherence to the statutory requirements of Talbs and the deposit of Zar-e-Soem are essential prerequisites for a successful pre-emption claim, and failure to satisfy these renders the suit liable to dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the presence of witnesses at the time of making Talb-i-Muwathibat invalidate a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a pre-emption suit maintainable if the plaintiff fails to deposit the Zar-e-Soem based on the actual sale price of the property?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be filed before the requirements of Talb-i-Ishhad have been fully satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State through Prosecutor-General2015 P Cr. L J 382 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-25
  dishonestly receiving stolen propertycriminal revisionburden of proofstolen propertyhearsay evidencepossession of stolen propertyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly retaining a stolen motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically that the property was indeed "stolen property" and that the petitioner possessed it with the requisite dishonest knowledge. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motorcycle was stolen, relying merely on inadmissible hearsay information from the Citizen Police Liaison Committee rather than documentary evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that possession alone does not constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court ruled that the prosecution must prove the stolen status of the property and the accused's knowledge thereof. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that without proof of the property's stolen nature and the accused's dishonest intent, a conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of a motorcycle constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonest intent?
  • Is hearsay information regarding the status of property sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Must the prosecution prove that property is 'stolen property' as defined in Section 410 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a conviction under Section 411 can be recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah alias Haji Sardar vs The State2015 LHC 5633, 2015 YLR 2711 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09
  narcotics controlconfessional statementSection 164 Cr.P.C.recovery of heroinbenefit of doubtcriminal appealprevious convictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances convicting the appellant under Sections 9(c) and 15 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was linked to drug trafficking stemming from information received from Sri Lanka and that he pointed out a house from which heroin was recovered. The core legal questions involved whether a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in violation of mandatory provisions is admissible in evidence, and whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's nexus with the alleged recovery and the main accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to glaring illegalities in recording the confessional statement, lack of reliable recovery evidence, and reliance on presumptions by the trial court. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on weak, self-contradictory evidence, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judicial confession recorded in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is admissible in evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when it is based on presumptions and weak, self-contradictory prosecution evidence?
  • How must a previous conviction of an accused be formally proved during a trial in terms of Section 265-I of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the effect of a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case regarding the accused's guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah alias Haji Sardar vs The State2015 LHC 5633 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09
  narcotics controlconfessional statementbenefit of doubtrecovery of heroincriminal appealprevious convictionpointationillegalities in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution's case rested on two main sets of allegations: a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 following foreign intelligence regarding a drug carrier, and the alleged recovery of heroin and money based on the appellant's pointation. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and legal compliance of recording statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the proof of recoveries connected to drug trafficking, and the standard of proof required for previous convictions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution suffered from glaring illegalities, including failure to comply with mandatory provisions for recording statements under Section 164 and failure to substantiate recovery links. The court established that convictions cannot be based on weak, self-contradictory evidence or mere presumptions, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is admissible in evidence when mandatory statutory requirements and proper formalities are ignored by the magistrate?
  • Can a conviction for a narcotics offence be sustained on the basis of presumptions and weak, uncorroborated recovery evidence?
  • How must a previous conviction of an accused be legally proved during a trial under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt and acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana International Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Attorney2015 YLR 2699 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-05Read full judgment →
• Sarwar, Etc. Nadeem Khan vs The State, Etc.s2015 NLR Criminal 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  summoning of accusedprivate complaintbond for appearancepre-arrest bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses a long-standing legal controversy regarding whether an accused person, upon being summoned by a Trial Court under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to face a trial arising from a private complaint, is required only to furnish a bond with or without sureties for future appearance under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or whether they must apply for pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. A 5-member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was constituted to resolve conflicting prior judgments and establish certainty on the correct procedure. The Court reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and case law to conclusively settle the issue and provide authoritative guidance for all courts in the country, subsequently leaving individual appeals and petitions to be decided on their respective merits based on the declared law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person summoned by a Trial Court under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a private complaint is required to apply for pre-arrest bail or simply furnish a bond under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the issuance of a summons under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 necessitate the filing of a bail application under sections 496, 497, or 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Samundri Road, Faisalabad vs C.I.R. (Zone-III), R.T.O., Faisalabad2015 PTD (Trib) 1643 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-12-11
  sales tax registrationblacklistingsuspension of registrationtax fraudofficial gazettedue processfair trialaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by Messrs Khyaban Packages against an order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-III), R.T.O., Faisalabad, blacklisting the appellant from the date of its registration and suspending its sales tax registration due to alleged non-compliance with section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 regarding declared business bank accounts. The core legal questions involved whether a general order issued by the FBR without publication in the official Gazette can serve as a valid procedure for suspension and blacklisting under section 21(2) of the Act, whether violation of section 73 warrants blacklisting, and whether the principles of natural justice and fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan were violated. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that the FBR's General Order not published in the official Gazette is illegal and without jurisdiction, that non-compliance with section 73 attracts only a minor penalty rather than blacklisting, and that passing adverse orders without a pre-decisional hearing violates natural justice and constitutional due process. The Tribunal set aside the impugned suspension and blacklisting orders and directed the immediate restoration of the appellant's registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a general order issued by the Federal Board of Revenue without publication in the official Gazette can provide a valid legal basis for suspending and blacklisting a registered person under section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the failure to declare business bank accounts under section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 constitute 'tax fraud' or warrant the extreme step of suspension and blacklisting of a registered person?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan are violated when a sales tax registration is suspended without affording a prior opportunity of hearing?
  • What is the prescribed legal consequence under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for failing to notify changes of material nature in the particulars of registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Samreen and anothers vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 753 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2014-12-12
  revision petitionacquittalhostile witnesscompromiseFisad-fil-Arzmurderbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the trial court's order rejecting the petitioners' application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners were charged with murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the trial, the complainant (the deceased's father) and the key eye-witnesses turned hostile and disowned the prosecution's case. The trial court, however, rejected the acquittal application on the grounds that the petitioners had previously obtained bail based on a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased, which it treated as incriminating evidence, and invoked Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court accepted the revision petition, holding that a compromise or pardon cannot be treated as incriminating evidence or an admission of guilt. Furthermore, the court ruled that Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding 'Fisad-fil-Arz' was inapplicable as there was no evidence of the petitioners being habitual offenders or committing the crime in a brutal manner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise or pardon by the legal heirs of a deceased be treated as an incriminating piece of evidence or a confession of guilt against the accused?
  • Can observations made in bail orders be utilized as a basis for the conviction or acquittal of an accused during trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a court invoke Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the principle of 'Fisad-fil-Arz' to punish an offender after a compromise has been reached?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and 9 others vs Aqal Mand and 37 others2015 YLR 1059 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-04Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah Khan and others vs Sheikh Taj Muhammad through Legal Heirs2015 PLD Peshawar 175 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-20
  evacuee propertypast and closed transactionrepeal of evacuee lawsjurisdiction of civil courtlis pendenscancellation of allotmentbona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, which decreed the plaintiffs' suit declaring them owners in possession of the disputed evacuee property. The core legal questions involved whether the Deputy Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner could reopen and cancel a finalized evacuee land allotment decades after the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to examine such an order. The Peshawar High Court held that once an allotment has attained finality and become a past and closed transaction prior to the cut-off date, the settlement authorities and notified officers lack jurisdiction under Section 2(2) of the Repeal Act of 1975 to reopen the matter in the absence of pending proceedings or a remand from the superior courts. Consequently, any such cancellation order is coram non judice, a nullity in the eye of the law, and amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Furthermore, transactions pendente lite are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 has the authority to reopen a past and closed transaction of land allotment long after the repeal of the settlement laws?
  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to determine the vires of an order passed by a settlement authority or Deputy Commissioner when such authority acts without jurisdiction?
  • What constitutes 'pending proceedings' under Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Are property transactions undertaken during the pendency of a suit or revision petition affected by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and others vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-22
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencenight occurrenceabscondenceforensic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bannu, which convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder, while acquitting a co-accused. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular accounts of the deceased's daughter and son, who claimed to have witnessed the night-time shooting. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses failed to establish their presence at the scene, as the Investigating Officer testified that the crime scene was not visible from their alleged vantage point. Furthermore, the complainant made dishonest improvements regarding the source of light, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the direction of the bullet wounds, and the forensic report showed that all recovered empties were fired from a single weapon, contradicting the claim of two active shooters. The Court held that abscondence alone cannot substitute for real evidence and, applying the principle of benefit of doubt, allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of an eyewitness to mention a source of light in the initial FIR, followed by a later claim of identification by an electric bulb, constitutes a fatal dishonest improvement?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence in the absence of credible direct or circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the direction of firearm entry wounds create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the unhurt escape of an eyewitness in close proximity to the deceased, where the assailants had a strong motive to eliminate him as well, renders his presence at the scene highly improbable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and anothers vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 579 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausevicarious liabilityfurther inquirycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 269/14, wherein the petitioners, Sami Ullah and Kaleem Ullah, were charged with offenses under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the injuries specifically attributed to the petitioners fell under sections not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as no direct injury regarding the deceased was attributed to the petitioners, their vicarious liability remained a matter for trial. Noting that the petitioners were previous non-convicts, the investigation was complete, and trial progress was minimal, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where attributed injuries do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused's vicarious liability requires further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail, provided they are not required for further investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the mere commencement of a trial sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused otherwise entitled to it?
  • Can vicarious liability for a murder charge be determined at the bail stage when the specific injuries attributed to the accused do not fall under the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2015 LHC 959, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1131 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Samee Ullah etc. vs Govt. of Punjab etc.2015 LHC 959 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Saltnat Khan and others vs Asfandyar Khan and others2015 YLR 2559 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-13Read full judgment →
• Salman Qureshi vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailkidnapping for ransomfurther inquiryunnamed accusedidentification paraderecovery of ransomtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the applicant's post-arrest bail plea in a case registered under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 21(D) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR, not identified by the abductee, and linked only via the alleged use of his vehicle and a subsequent recovery of unmarked cash, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case against the applicant was tentative, rested on suspicion, and warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the applicant's release on post-arrest bail, laying down that the mere recovery of cash without identification or direct incriminating evidence is insufficient to deny bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the FIR and not identified in an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail when linked to the crime only through ownership of a vehicle allegedly used and subsequent recovery of unmarked cash?
  • Does the mere recovery of cash in the absence of other direct incriminating evidence constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail?
  • What is the effect of a lack of direct evidence and reliance on suspicion during a tentative assessment of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Asghar and others vs Special Judge Rent Controller, Lahore2015 MLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-05Read full judgment →
• Salma Parveen and 2 others vs Naeem Ahmad Nasir and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 465 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-30Read full judgment →
• Salik Zahur Khan vs Nazia Salik and 5 others2015 PLJ AJ&K 230 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-06-11
  habis corpusminor custodyforeign custody orderUK-Pakistan Judicial Protocolhabitual residenceguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the production and custody of three minor British national children who were allegedly wrongfully retained in Pakistan by their mother and relatives, contrary to orders of the High Court of Justice, Family Division, UK and the UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol of 2003. The core legal question was whether the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir should enforce the orders of a foreign court regarding the custody and return of minors who are habitual residents of that foreign jurisdiction. The court held that since the minors are British nationals habitually resident in the UK and a competent UK court has seized the matter and issued return orders, the respondents must hand over the custody of the minors to the petitioner father. The key principle laid down is that where minors are habitual residents of a foreign jurisdiction and the foreign court is actively seized of the custody dispute, local courts may facilitate the return of the minors to their home jurisdiction pursuant to international judicial protocols.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court in Azad Jammu and Kashmir entertain a habeas corpus petition for the return of minor children to a foreign jurisdiction where proceedings are already pending?
  • Whether the custody of minor children habitually resident in the United Kingdom can be ordered to be handed over to the father pursuant to orders of a UK court?
  • Does an alternate remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act bar a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters of wrongful removal of minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and 6 others vs Arz Muhammad and 9 others2015 PLD Balochistan 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-24
  execution of decreecivil revisionconversion of revision into appealappealable ordersShariat Regulation Actexecution objections
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order passed by the Qazi, Dalbandin, allowing an execution application for the delivery of possession of immovable property pursuant to a decree. The core legal questions involved the appealability of an order deciding objections in execution proceedings under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the competency of a civil revision against such an order, and the High Court's power to convert a revision petition into an appeal to prevent a failure of justice. The Balochistan High Court held that an order deciding execution objections falls under Section 47 and is appealable under Section 104(1)(ff) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, making a revision petition incompetent before the High Court since the suit was adjudicated under the Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation Act 1976. However, to avoid technicalities and multiplicity of proceedings, the court exercised its discretion to convert the civil revision into an appeal from the date of its original institution and transferred it to the Majlis-e-Shoora for adjudication on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order deciding objections relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree is appealable under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a civil revision petition can be converted into a regular appeal to prevent a failure of justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
  • From which date does the conversion of a civil revision petition into an appeal take effect regarding the computation of limitation?
  • Whether a revision petition is competent before the High Court against an order passed by the executing court in a suit governed by the Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan and another vs The State through Anti-Narcotic Force2015 YLR 398 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-23
  narcotics smugglingbenefit of doubtwitness reliabilitycriminal appealconscious possessioninvestigation procedureControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for smuggling heroin under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the testimony of a key witness who was not examined during the initial investigation, and whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' conscious possession or facilitation of the contraband. The Sindh High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, as the testimony of the star witness was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish a direct link between the appellants and the specific suitcase containing the narcotics. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the evidence of a witness whose statement was not recorded during the investigation is generally unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when prosecution evidence is contradictory, unreliable, or fails to establish a clear nexus between the accused and the alleged offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a witness who was not examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the investigation reliable?
  • Does the failure to establish a direct link between the accused and the contraband warrant an acquittal in narcotics cases?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's star witness provides inconsistent testimony regarding the identification of the recovered evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khadra vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 722 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-15
  suspension of sentenceappreciation of evidencepost-conviction bailappellate jurisdictionlife imprisonmentcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by the appellant, Saleem Khadera, who was convicted under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant's sentence should be suspended pending the final adjudication of his appeal based on arguments challenging the trial court's appreciation of evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that a request for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not permit a deep or thorough re-appraisal of evidence, which is reserved for the final hearing of the appeal. The court established that while exercising discretion under Section 426, the appellate court must avoid commenting on the merits of the case unless a clear legal error in the impugned judgment is demonstrated. As the appellant failed to identify any such legal error, the court declined to interfere with the trial court's findings at this preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court conduct a deep re-appraisal of evidence when deciding an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances is a court justified in suspending a sentence pending appeal?
  • Is it appropriate to set aside a conviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmed Mirza vs Retd: Major Syed Iftikhar Hussain Zaidi and 22015 YLR 196 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-13
  ownership disputemesne profitstrespasserarbitration awardregistered leasecivil suitpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit concerns a dispute over the ownership and possession of a residential plot in Karachi. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff established valid title and ownership of the suit property, whether the defendants were in illegal possession, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits. The Court held that the plaintiff, having produced valid title documents, including a registered lease from the Karachi Development Authority and mutation records, successfully established ownership. Conversely, the defendants failed to substantiate their claims of ownership based on an alleged 1973 agreement of sale and a previously set-aside arbitration award. The Court found the defendants to be trespassers and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting the declaration of ownership, delivery of vacant possession, and mesne profits. The principle laid down is that where a plaintiff establishes a valid, registered title and the defendant fails to produce original evidence of a superior title or lawful possession, the defendant’s occupation is deemed unlawful, entitling the rightful owner to possession and mesne profits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a registered lease and mutation order from the Karachi Development Authority constitute sufficient proof of ownership in a civil suit?
  • Can a defendant claim lawful possession based on an arbitration award that has been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to mesne profits from a defendant who is found to be a trespasser on the suit property?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to produce original documents of title, relying instead on photocopies, invalidate their claim to property ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem A. Sattar and anothers vs Messrs Alpha Insurance Company2015 PLD Sindh 420 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-03Read full judgment →
• Salamat Masih vs Additional District Judge and others2015 YLR 2467 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-14Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs The State.2015 LHC 7384 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry f Law and Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 385 · Sindh High Court · 2012-12-17
  disabled personsemployment quotaretrenchmentconstitutional jurisdictionbeneficial legislationrehabilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, disabled persons employed by respondent No.4 and later retrenched due to reorganization, filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration against their retrenchment and the enforcement of the 2% employment quota for disabled persons under the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that KESC is not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction and that the 1981 Ordinance is no longer enforceable following the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The Sindh High Court held that the 1981 Ordinance is beneficial legislation aimed at the rehabilitation of disabled persons rather than a standard labor law, and in the absence of an alternative efficacious remedy, the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is maintainable. The court laid down the principle that establishments governed by the 1981 Ordinance must apply the statutory 2% employment quota for disabled persons when considering retrenchment, and accordingly directed respondent No.4 to examine the petitioners' case in light of this quota and re-employ them if protected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 can be invoked for the enforcement of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981?
  • Does the 18th Constitutional Amendment render the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 unenforceable?
  • Are establishments governed under the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 required to maintain the 2% employment quota during retrenchment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Mukhi vs The State and others2015 NLR Criminal 561, 2015 P.S.C. (Crl.) 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-08-12
  acquittal appealsection 265-K Cr.P.C.family disputecivil disputedelay in FIRcriminal petitionrobbery allegations
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition is directed against the order of the High Court which dismissed the petitioner's criminal acquittal appeal, upholding the Trial Court's order under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. acquitting the private respondents in a case registered under Sections 392, 406, 468, 471, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether the acquittal under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. was legally sustainable given the evidence and circumstances of the case, and whether the criminal proceedings were merely an abuse of process arising from a bona fide family property dispute. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient material to substantiate allegations of robbery, noting an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and observing that the matter fundamentally stemmed from a civil property dispute between family members where civil suits were already pending. The Court laid down the principle that where a dispute squarely falls within the domain of the civil court and related civil proceedings are pending, criminal courts ought not to interfere.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal order passed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is liable to be set aside when the evidence on record fails to substantiate the criminal charges?
  • Can criminal proceedings continue when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature and pertains to family properties subject to pending civil suits?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. weaken the credibility of the prosecution's case in a criminal petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Mukhi vs The State & OTHERSs2015 NLR Criminal 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-08-12
  criminal acquittal appealSection 265-K CrPCfamily disputecivil-criminal overlapstay of criminal proceedingsdelayed FIRproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the High Court which had dismissed the petitioner's Criminal Acquittal Appeal, thereby upholding the trial court's acquittal of private respondents under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents without allowing the petitioner to lead further evidence and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court had provided ample opportunity for the petitioner to produce witnesses, which he failed to utilize. Furthermore, the Court observed that the underlying dispute was essentially a civil property matter between family members, characterized by significant delays in reporting the alleged criminal incidents and pending civil litigation regarding the disputed properties. The Court held that where civil suits are pending between parties regarding the subject matter of a criminal complaint, the criminal court should stay its hands, as property disputes fall squarely within the domain of the civil court. Consequently, the acquittal was upheld as the evidence failed to substantiate the criminal allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Should a criminal court proceed with a case when the underlying dispute is essentially a civil property matter currently pending before a civil court?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the complainant fails to produce witnesses despite being given ample opportunity?
  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, without sufficient explanation, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider alias Baga vs The State etc.2015 LHC 2172 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27
  criminal appealmurder convictionquantum of sentencemitigating circumstancesocular evidencebenefit of doubtdeath sentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of the appellant’s brother. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the evidentiary value of the disputed recovery of the murder weapon, the proof of motive, and the appropriate quantum of sentence given the circumstances. The Court held that while the ocular testimony of the complainant and an eyewitness remained consistent and confidence-inspiring, thereby proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to establish the motive and the recovery of the weapon was unreliable due to procedural lapses. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to prove motive and recovery, and the immediate cause of the incident remains shrouded in mystery, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence, necessitating a reduction from capital punishment to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained based on ocular evidence alone when the recovery of the weapon and the motive are disbelieved?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive and recovery of the weapon constitute an extenuating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon credible if the recovery witness is not a resident of the locality and the investigating officer fails to associate local witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Gondal vs (1) Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited (2) Muhammad AshrafSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed alias Daadi vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 627 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad Waseem vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 313 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clauserecovery of amountcriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 297/14 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no further recovery is required. The Court held that since the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused has joined the investigation, no recovery is pending, and the trial has already commenced, sending the petitioner to jail would serve no useful purpose. The Court laid down the key principle that Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was designed to determine guilt and award sentence rather than to be used as a coercive mechanism for the recovery of disputed amounts, for which the remedy lies under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be used as a tool for the recovery of a disputed amount?
  • Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the accused has joined the investigation and no recovery is to be effected?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The State and 3 others2015 P Cr. L J 585 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-09
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtabscondencemurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony in a single-accused murder case where the incident occurred at night without identified light sources. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, as the prosecution's ocular account was fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the direction of fire, the presence of blackening on wounds, and the distance between the parties. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of independent corroboration and the failure to explain material discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative. The court reaffirmed the principle that when ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and circumstances, it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Additionally, the court held that abscondence, while a suspicious circumstance, is not conclusive proof of guilt and cannot substitute for substantive evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of reasonable doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and must be granted when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular testimony is fundamentally contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient, in isolation, to establish guilt for a criminal offence?
  • Does the presence of an injury on an injured witness automatically render their testimony truthful and unimpeachable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of crime empties when the weapon of offence is not recovered?
  Read full judgment →