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.

• Muhammad Taufeeq vs Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others2015 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-12
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentenhanced rentrent controllerurban rent restriction ordinanceconstitutional petitionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower forums whereby his ejectment from the rented premises was ordered on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondents sought ejectment alleging that the petitioner failed to deposit rent in terms of an earlier order dated 27-7-2009 passed by the Rent Controller which had enhanced the rent, leaving arrears due. The core legal questions involved whether the uncontallenged enhancement order attained finality, whether failure to pay rent at the enhanced rate constituted willful default, and whether subsequent deposit of arrears could cure a default already committed. The Lahore High Court held that since the order enhancing rent was never assailed, it had attained finality, and the enhancement was in fact lower than the automatic increase admissible under the law. The Court ruled that failure to pay rent at the enhanced rate rendered the tenant a defaulter, and subsequent payment or deposit of arrears does not wipe off a default once committed. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncontallenged order of a Rent Controller enhancing the rate of rent attains finality if not assailed by the tenant?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to pay rent at an enhanced rate fixed by the Rent Controller constitute a default in payment of rent?
  • Can subsequent payment or deposit of arrears wipe off a default once it has been committed by a tenant?
  • What is the nature of a tenancy in the absence of a written agreement regarding the period of tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  Section 342 statementcriminal appealdeath sentenceremandfair trialincriminating evidenceprocedural illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the trial court’s failure to put all material incriminating evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the trial. The Court held that the trial court committed a serious illegality by omitting to question the appellant regarding crucial evidence, including the circumstances of his arrest and the recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter to the trial court for a fresh statement of the accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to be recorded in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that the requirement to put every material piece of evidence to an accused during Section 342 examination is mandatory; failure to comply denies the accused a fair opportunity to explain their position, constitutes a fatal illegality, and is not a curable irregularity under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put all material incriminating evidence to an accused during a Section 342 statement vitiate the trial?
  • Is the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity under Section 537?
  • What is the legal consequence when a trial court fails to provide an accused the opportunity to explain incriminating evidence during their examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Raza Attari vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  kidnapping for ransomdeath sentencecircumstantial evidencerecovery of dead bodyAnti-Terrorism Actconfessionpointationdeterrent punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for the kidnapping and murder of a six-year-old boy for ransom. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically the appellant's telephonic ransom demands, his arrest at a PCO, and his subsequent pointation leading to the recovery of the deceased's body from his residence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on the appellant's disclosure leading to the discovery of the body. The High Court held that the evidence, including the medical report confirming death by strangulation and the appellant's conduct, was consistent and reliable. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, emphasizing that the information provided by the accused leading to the discovery of the body was admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court reiterated that in capital cases involving heinous crimes, deterrent punishment is the legal duty of the court when guilt is established.

  Questions settled

  • Can information provided by an accused leading to the discovery of a dead body be used as evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a death sentence appropriate for the kidnapping and murder of a minor for ransom when the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure to examine mashirs of pointation invalidate a conviction based on other corroborative evidence?
  • Are convicts tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Anees vs Daniyal Aziz & 6 others2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Election) 38 · Election Tribunal · 2014-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and others vs Abdul Razaq2015 CLC 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-22
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ishhadsale versus exchangerevision petitioncontradictions in evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is directed against the appellate court judgment and decree whereby a suit for possession through pre-emption was decreed after setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The core legal questions involved the legality and proof of the performance of talbs (Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad) and whether the disputed transaction was a sale or an exchange. The Peshawar High Court held that major contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses regarding the time, mode, and manner of performing talbs were fatal to the pre-emption suit. Furthermore, the court held that the pre-emptor failed to prove that the transaction was a sale rather than an exchange supported by a registered deed. The ratio decidendi is that material discrepancies in evidence regarding talbs vitiate a pre-emption claim, and bare assertions cannot displace the presumption of truth attached to a registered exchange deed. The court laid down the principle that pre-emption being a piratical right requires strict and consistent proof of talbs, and the burden of proving a transaction to be a sale rather than an exchange lies heavily on the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of a pre-emptor and his witnesses regarding the time and manner of performing Talb-e-Muwathibat fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Where a transaction is recorded in public revenue records as an exchange, does the burden lie on the pre-emptor to prove through cogent evidence that it was actually a sale?
  • Can oral statements varying the terms of a registered exchange instrument be admitted into evidence to establish a right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and 2 others vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 1326 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-11
  criminal revisioncompromisecompoundable offencesnon-compoundable offencesentence reductionacquittalhouse-trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, which upheld the petitioners' convictions and sentences for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the revision, the parties reached a compromise, with the complainants and injured persons submitting affidavits and statements confirming they had forgiven the petitioners in the name of Almighty Allah and had no objection to their acquittal. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise for offences that are compoundable and how to address the non-compoundable offence of house-trespass (Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The Court held that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and reached for mutual harmony. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences for the compoundable offences. Regarding the non-compoundable offence under Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court, following the precedent of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners, ordering their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court accept a compromise between parties for compoundable offences during a criminal revision?
  • How should a court handle a conviction for a non-compoundable offence when the parties have reached a compromise for other offences in the same case?
  • Is it permissible to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone for a non-compoundable offence following a compromise on other charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanvir etc. vs The State etc.2015 LHC 7872 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-07
  post-arrest bailcross-versionsfurther inquirydacoitymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant petition, the petitioners Muhammad Tanvir and Adnan Sohail sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 381/2014 registered under sections 395, 324, 302, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail where cross-versions existed and the deceased allegedly sustained injuries from firing by the local residents in self-defense. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, holding that the case required further probe into the petitioners' guilt under sub-section (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that investigation was complete, trial had not commenced, and the petitioners had been incarcerated since 01.09.2014 without conviction in other cases. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions of an occurrence exist and liability requires deeper appreciation through evidence, further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 brings the accused within the scope of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when cross-versions of the occurrence are presented by both parties?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in other unconvicted cases disentitle them to bail when their case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talib Shahzad vs Ministry of Commerce, etcK.L.R. 2015 Labour & Service Cases 25, K.L.R. 2015 Labour & Service Cases 37, · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Province of Punjab through District Collector2015 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Javed vs DCO, Chiniot and others2015 MLD 512 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Iqbal vs National Database and Registration2015 PLJ Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-07
  constitutional petitiondismissal from servicestatutory regulationsregular inquiryfair trialdue processnatural justicemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Data Entry Operator challenging his dismissal from service by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The petitioner was dismissed following a show-cause notice alleging unauthorized login use and uploading unofficial documents, which he denied. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the NADRA Service Regulations were non-statutory. The Lahore High Court held that because the regulations were framed under Section 45 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 and published in the official Gazette, they are statutory in nature. On the merits, the Court observed that the petitioner was dismissed without a regular inquiry or personal hearing. The Court held that where allegations of misconduct are factual and disputed, holding a regular inquiry is a mandatory requirement (sine qua non) that cannot be dispensed with. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, declared the dismissal order void for violating the fundamental right to a fair trial, and remitted the matter for a fresh inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Are the NADRA Employees (Service Regulations), 2002 statutory in nature so as to enable an employee to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether a major penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed on an employee without holding a regular inquiry when the factual allegations of misconduct are specifically denied?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry and afford a personal hearing to an employee prior to dismissal violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the personal hearing of a co-accused satisfy the requirement of providing a personal hearing to the accused employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 532 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-07
  post-arrest bailwhite-collar crimecircumstantial evidencefraudbogus demand draftcall data record
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a sophisticated white-collar fraud regarding the fraudulent purchase of fertilizer using a bogus demand draft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstantial and electronic evidence connecting him to the crime. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that prima facie sufficient incriminating material, including call data records, witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner's criminal history, connected him to the offense. The key principle laid down is that in modern sophisticated white-collar crimes, unbroken chains of circumstantial and electronic evidence collected during investigation are sufficient at the tentative assessment stage to deny post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be refused when the accused is prima facie connected to a white-collar crime through circumstantial and electronic evidence?
  • Can call data records and mobile phone IMEI data form a sufficient chain of evidence to deny bail at the tentative assessment stage?
  • Is a previous criminal history a relevant factor when considering a post-arrest bail application in fraud cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Khan vs Deputy Director Works2015 CLC 1353 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulleman Zafarullah Jakhrani vs NotSindh High Court · -
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailfirearm injuriesprohibitory clausebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal applications seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in respect of crime No.47/2013 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Jacobabad, under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the accused are entitled to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail given the specific role attributed to them, corroborating medical evidence, recoveries, and violation of prior constitutional petition orders. The Sindh High Court held that both accused applicants failed to make out a case for bail, noting that specific firearm roles were attributed, corroborated by medical certificates, firearm recoveries, and the offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where specific roles of firing, corroborative medical evidence, and weapon recoveries exist, and the offense falls within the prohibitory clause alongside the absence of mala fides, bail must be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when specific roles of firing and supporting medical evidence are present?
  • Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail under normal circumstances?
  • Is the absence of mala fides fatal to an application for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulaiman Balouch & Mureed Balouch vs (1) Anwer (2) The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailmurderlast seen evidencefurther inquirytentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by two accused persons seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who were implicated solely on the basis of being 'last seen' with the deceased, were entitled to bail when no direct evidence or incriminating recovery linked them to the crime. The High Court granted bail, holding that the applicants had made out a case for further inquiry. The court observed that the deceased had voluntarily left with a co-accused, not the applicants, and in the absence of eye-witnesses, motive, or recovery of incriminating material from the applicants, the prosecution's case against them was weak at the tentative assessment stage. Consequently, the court held that where the evidence is insufficient to establish a direct link, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'last seen' theory alone constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
  • Is the absence of incriminating recovery from an accused a valid ground for granting bail in a case of further inquiry?
  • Can an accused be denied bail when the FIR does not allege a specific role or motive against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad son of Muhammad Yousuf vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  rash and negligent drivingqatal-i-khataroad traffic accidentcriminal appealacquittalcontradictions in evidencediyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing qatal-i-khata by rash and negligent driving, resulting in a five-year sentence and payment of diyat. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish rash and negligent driving due to material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of eye-witness accounts regarding the manner of driving, a concession also supported by the state prosecutor. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in a charge of culpable homicide by rash or negligent driving, failure of the prosecution to prove the foundational elements of rashness or negligence through consistent and reliable evidence vitiates the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove rash and negligent driving to sustain a conviction under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does material contradiction among prosecution witnesses regarding the time and manner of a traffic accident warrant the setting aside of a conviction?
  • Can a conviction for qatal-i-khata stand when no witness testifies to having seen the accused driving rashly or negligently?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail vs Divisional Superintendant, Pakistan Railways, Quetta2015 C.L.R. 984 · Federal Service Tribunal
  unauthorized absenceservice appeallimitation perioddismissal from serviceshow-cause noticecivil servantFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant, a railway employee, for unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal over railway employees, the validity of the dismissal order issued without a formal inquiry, and the maintainability of the appeal given the significant delay in filing. The Tribunal held that railway employees are civil servants, confirming its jurisdiction. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the department had provided the appellant with sufficient opportunity to defend himself through show-cause notices and newspaper publications, justifying the decision to dispense with a formal inquiry under the applicable rules. Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, emphasizing that the law of limitation must be applied strictly and that the appellant’s prolonged, unexplained absence constituted gross negligence. The judgment affirms that the right to a formal inquiry can be dispensed with when the accused is afforded reasonable opportunity to show cause, and that courts will not condone stale demands where a party has slept on their rights for years.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by employees of the Pakistan Railways?
  • Can an employer dispense with a formal departmental inquiry when initiating disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Is an appeal against a dismissal order maintainable when filed after a significant, unexplained delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail Sarwar vs Additional District Collector, Khanewal and others2015 MLD 905 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sikandar, Junior Clerk vs District CollectorIDCO, Rajanpur, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 1198, 2015 C.L.R. 1216 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sikandar Junior Clerk vs District Collector/DCO-2015 PLJ Lahore 1198 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique, etc vs Allah Ditta, etc2015 LHC 7033 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mst. Noor Bibi.2015 LHC 5976 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique the State vs The State Muhammad Siddique2015 NLR Criminal 571 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-06
  murderdeath sentenceimprisonment for lifemitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular accountplea of alibirelated witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Khanewal, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of his wife. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the effect of unproven motive on the capital charge, and the evaluation of a plea of alibi. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt registration of the FIR, successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, while his plea of alibi remained a bald assertion. However, the Court ruled that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive, coupled with the existence of minor children who would be orphaned if the death sentence was executed, provided mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of the death penalty. The Court laid down the principle that while unproven motive does not falsify a trustworthy ocular account, it operates as a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive render the entire ocular testimony unreliable?
  • Can the unproven motive act as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a plea of alibi when not substantiated by cogent and concrete evidence?
  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy in the absence of previous enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Sherani vs Shahjahan and 3 others2015 PLD Balochistan 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Baloch vs Jehangir Khan Tareen and others2016 PLJ Sc 276, 2016 P.S.C. 176, 2015-SCP-124, 2015-SCP-166, PLD 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-28
  election appealcorrupt practicesbogus votingNADRA verificationmaterially affected election resulteducational qualificationfalse declarationre-poll
  Summary & questions settled

  This election appeal assails the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Multan, which unseated the appellant as Member National Assembly for constituency NA-154 Lodhran-I. The Tribunal declared the election void based on three findings: a false declaration of educational qualifications under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, the procurement of widespread corrupt practices under Section 99(1-A)(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and the result being materially affected by non-compliance with election laws under Section 70(a) of ROPA. The Supreme Court examined reports from NADRA and the Regional Election Commissioner, which revealed extensive irregularities, including un-signed counterfoils and thousands of invalid or missing CNICs and thumb impressions. The Court held that while the allegations of corrupt practices and false educational declarations were not affirmatively proven by the election petitioner and were thus set aside, the widespread non-compliance with Section 33 of ROPA materially affected the election result when adjusted against the winning margin. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the disqualification findings, declared the election void as a whole, and ordered a fresh election in the constituency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether widespread non-compliance with statutory voting procedures under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, can materially affect an election result under Section 70(a)?
  • Does an allegation of corrupt and illegal practices against a returned candidate require affirmative and positive proof excluding all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence?
  • Can a finding of disqualification for making a false declaration regarding educational qualifications under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution be sustained on the basis of inferences, surmises, and unproven evidence?
  • How should an Election Tribunal evaluate verification reports and digital analysis of ballot paper counterfoils produced by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 3 others vs Babar Hussain and 3 others2015 C.L.R. 897 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-02-25
  second appealconcurrent findingsmarket valueright of prior purchasepre-emptionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the courts below regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption, specifically concerning the determination of the market value of the suit land. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff successfully established that the market value of the land was less than the sale-deed consideration based on a three-year average prepared by the Patwari, and whether concurrent findings of fact could be disturbed in second appeal. The High Court held that a mere three-year average without comparative sales of similar land in the neighbourhood is insufficient to determine market value under Section 26 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 BK, and that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent misreading, non-reading of evidence, or gross illegality. The key principle laid down is that interference with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal requires clear proof of misreading or non-reading of the record, and the market value of land for pre-emption must be proved by proper comparative evidence of similar properties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a three-year average prepared by a Patwari is sufficient proof of market value in pre-emption suits without evidence of similar land in the neighbourhood?
  • Can the High Court disturb concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal without establishing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • What factors must a court consider when determining the market value of a property under the Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 BK?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoukat and Abdul Wahab Afghani vs The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycustodial tortureconfessional statementprohibitory clauseSection 161 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, an Operations Manager at a bank, who was accused of involvement in a theft and robbery at his workplace. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of eyewitnesses, the reliance on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during police remand, and allegations of police torture. The Court held that the prosecution's case, based primarily on the co-accused's statement and alleged recovery, was not free from doubt and required further inquiry. The Court emphasized that a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police cannot be treated as conclusive evidence for conviction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the medical report corroborated the applicant's claim of custodial torture. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests on weak evidence and requires further inquiry, and where the alleged offences do not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the police be used as sole evidence to deny bail?
  • Does the extra-judicial statement of a co-accused alone constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case is based on evidence that requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs Jamila Khatoon and 4 others2015 YLR 1213 · Sindh High Court · 2012-12-31
  specific performanceagreement to sellimmovable propertytime is of the essencepower of attorneybreach of contractdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for specific performance concerned an agreement to sell a bungalow in Karachi. The core questions were whether a concluded agreement existed, whether time was of the essence, whether a power of attorney was validly executed, and whether the plaintiff’s failure to deposit the balance consideration during interlocutory proceedings disentitled him to relief. The Court held that the agreement was a concluded contract and that the defendants, not the plaintiff, committed the breach. It determined that time was not of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s failure to deposit funds pursuant to an interim injunction order did not bar his entitlement to the main relief of specific performance. Relying on established principles, the Court also affirmed that a document not formally exhibited may still be considered if necessary for a just decision. Consequently, the suit was decreed, ordering the defendants to execute the sale deed upon the plaintiff’s payment of the balance consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property?
  • Does a plaintiff's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration during interlocutory proceedings automatically disentitle them to a decree for specific performance?
  • Can a court consider a document that was not formally exhibited during the trial if it is necessary for a just decision?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to enter the witness box to rebut evidence render their written statement ineffective?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher. vs Addl.Sessions Judge/JOP,etc.2015 LHC 6097 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shariq vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2015 PLJ Islamabad 231 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shariq vs Federation of Pakistan and others2015 PLJ Islamabad 231, 2015 PLD Islamabad 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs SHO P.S. Saddar Jhelum and 9 others2015 PLJ Lahore 1045 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sageer Ahmed alias Bhaya and another2015 P Cr. L J 611 · Sindh High Court · 2013-03-08
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictionkidnapping for ransomcriminal revisiontransfer of caseframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi, which had transferred the trial of special cases involving kidnapping for ransom and murder to the regular Sessions Court for want of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether an offence involving kidnapping for ransom and subsequent murder, which caused terror and panic in the community, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court is to be determined on the basis of the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the penal provisions at the time of framing the charge. The Court found that prima facie the ingredients of kidnapping for ransom and acts creating terror were made out. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned transfer order and remanded the matter back to the Anti-Terrorism Court to conclude the trial on a day-to-day basis. The key principle laid down is that the determination of jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act depends on the nature of the allegations and the terror-inducing effect of the crime as disclosed in the charge and evidence, rather than a subsequent tentative assessment by the trial court at the conclusion of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court is to be determined at the time of framing the charge based on the allegations and material collected during investigation?
  • Does an offence of kidnapping for ransom coupled with murder fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court transfer a case to a regular Sessions Court at the conclusion of the trial based on a tentative assessment of evidence regarding jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Roze Deen and 4 others2015 MLD 1804 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Zaman and 2 othersPLD 2015 Supreme Court (AJ&K · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Zaman & 2 others2015 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 169 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs District Police Officer and 2 others2015 PLD Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-07
  constitutional jurisdictionJustice of Peaceinsertion of penal provisionsquashing of directionscriminal investigationF.I.R.cognizable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking compliance with orders passed by a Justice of Peace under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which directed the investigating officer to add specific penal provisions to a First Information Report registered under section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Justice of Peace is empowered to direct the investigating agency or police to insert or delete specific penal provisions in an F.I.R., and whether the High Court should interfere in such matters under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the deletion or insertion of offences falls within the exclusive domain of the investigating police agency and the District Prosecutor under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Power) Act, 2006, and that a Justice of Peace acts beyond their jurisdiction when directing the addition of specific penal provisions at a premature stage of investigation. The court laid down the principle that interference in investigation by a Justice of Peace regarding the addition or deletion of offences is unwarranted, and such matters are to be examined by the Area Magistrate or trial court at the appropriate stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Justice of Peace have the legal authority to direct the police to insert or delete specific penal provisions in an F.I.R. during the investigation stage?
  • Is the deletion or insertion of offences within the exclusive domain of the investigating police agency and the District Prosecutor?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to enforce legally invalid orders passed by a Justice of Peace?
  • At what stage can an Area Magistrate or trial court examine the correctness of penal provisions incorporated in a criminal case report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs (1) Sagheer Ahmed alias Bhaya (2) The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs Muhammad Aslam2015 YLR 1194 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Abbasi vs Member Water, WAPDA, Lahore and others2015 P.S.C. 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-03-04
  service lawlimitation perioddepartmental appealcompulsory retirementregularization of leaveback-benefitsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the judgment of a Service Tribunal which had dismissed the appellant's departmental appeal on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question was whether the departmental appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and whether the subsequent imposition of a major penalty of compulsory retirement was justified given the regularization of the appellant's leave. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had provided a postal receipt dated 19.8.2001, which, when read with correspondence between the parties, established that the appeal was filed within time, contrary to the Tribunal's finding. On merits, the Court observed that the Department had regularized the appellant's leave for the period of his alleged absence, rendering the charge-sheet and the subsequent penalty of compulsory retirement inconsistent with the record. The Court held that once leave is regularized, there is no basis to penalize an employee for the same period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the appellant was reinstated in service, and the matter was remanded to the Department to determine the issue of back-benefits after a proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental appeal is considered filed on the date of dispatch as evidenced by a postal receipt?
  • Can an employee be penalized for unauthorized absence if the department has subsequently regularized the leave for that same period?
  • Does the regularization of leave negate the grounds for a major penalty based on absence from duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State2015 MLD 886 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-31
  post-arrest baildacoityrobberyrecovery of stolen propertyprohibitory clauseidentification parade
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Shakeel, who was charged in an FIR under Section 395/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity involving the robbery of a truck loaded with iron scrap. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his apprehension while allegedly driving the robbed vehicle, despite the applicant's claims of false implication, lack of identification parade, and the absence of his name in the FIR. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the applicant was apprehended while in possession of the robbed property on the pointation of the complainant, rendering an identification parade unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence, even if reclassified under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that in cases of violent robbery, the lack of independent witnesses due to fear of reprisal does not automatically entitle an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade necessary when an accused is arrested while in possession of the robbed property on the pointation of the complainant?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR entitle them to bail when they are subsequently apprehended with the robbed property?
  • Does the offence of dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State, Etc.s2015 NLR Criminal 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-03-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryjudicial reformformat of bail ordersgeneralized allegationscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to address the archaic and unnecessarily lengthy style of judicial order-writing in bail matters, proposing a streamlined, concise format for lower courts to save judicial time and align with modern requirements. Addressing the merits of the case, the Court observed that the petitioner was assigned only generalized allegations of firing without specific attribution of injury, no recovery was made from him, the police investigation found him innocent, the site plan cast doubt on the eyewitnesses' ability to view the incident, and the investigation was complete rendering physical custody unnecessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when general allegations of firing are attributed without specifying any individual injury?
  • Does the conclusion of innocence by an investigating officer during investigation make a case one for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can contradictions between an eyewitness account and the site plan form a valid ground for granting bail?
  • What is the recommended concise format for courts to adopt while deciding bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-31
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of bailcriminal breach of trustprevention of corruptionmala fide prosecutionelectricity theftunauthorized transformerLine Superintendent
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated order arose from two pre-arrest bail petitions filed by Muhammad Shakeel and Ali Hussain in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 409, 411, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that an unauthorized transformer was discovered installed at a private factory during a raid. The core issue before the High Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the lack of specific evidence linking their past postings to the installation period, the recovery of financial losses, and the absence of any recovery required from them. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to ascertain when the unauthorized transformer was installed, making the implication of the petitioners—who served years earlier—suspect, raising possibilities of mala fide. Noting that financial losses had been deposited by the factory owner and no recoveries were due, the Court confirmed ad-interim pre-arrest bail for both petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the prosecution fails to establish the timeframe of the alleged offence to link it to the accused's period of posting?
  • Whether the recovery of the alleged financial loss by the department justifies the confirmation of pre-arrest bail for implicated officials?
  • Does the absence of any incriminating material to be recovered from an accused support the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad vs Judge Family Court, Lahore and 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 94 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore, etc2015 LHC 5741 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-31
  writ of quo-warrantopublic appointmentDirector General Punjab Emergency Servicestatutory appointmentjudicial reviewmala fideslaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment and successive tenure extensions of respondent No. 3 as the Director General of the Punjab Emergency Service 1122, alleging non-transparent and illegal procedures contrary to Section 9 of the Punjab Emergency Service Act 2006 and Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability due to laches and mala fide intent, noting that one of the petitioners was a dismissed ex-employee of the service and that a previous challenge had been dismissed. The core legal question concerned the validity of the appointment under the governing statute and whether discretionary public appointments are open to judicial review where statutory criteria are met. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appointment strictly complied with Section 9 of the Punjab Emergency Service Act 2006, that the petition was tainted by personal vengeance and mala fides, and that courts should not interfere with executive appointments made within statutory parameters and based on satisfactory performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo-warranto against a public appointment is maintainable when filed with mala fide intent or personal vengeance?
  • Does the appointment of the Director General of the Punjab Emergency Service comply with Section 9 of the Punjab Emergency Service Act 2006?
  • Can recommendations made in judicial judgments regarding public appointment commissions assume the status of binding law without statutory enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Imran vs The State, etc.2015 PSC Crl. 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-03-31
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal trialdishonest issuance of chequebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shahid Imran, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, considering the duration of his incarceration and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court observed that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense under Section 489-F is three years, and the petitioner had already remained in custody for over five months. Crucially, the Court determined that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the challan had been submitted and prosecution witnesses summoned, but the trial had not significantly progressed, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the grant of bail is generally favored, especially when trial proceedings are delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the offense charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial has not significantly progressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Haji Muhammad Yar vs The State etc. Muhammad2015 LHC 7806 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-10
  chance witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionmedico-legal reportrecovery of weaponocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder and house trespass, while a connected revision petition seeks sentence enhancement. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on alleged eyewitnesses whose presence at the crime scene was not satisfactorily explained. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found the eyewitnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful, noting significant contradictions between their testimonies and the medical evidence, specifically the absence of their names in the initial medico-legal report. Furthermore, the Court discarded the recovery of the weapon due to procedural delays and lack of independent corroboration. Emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt is a fundamental right of the accused, the Court ruled that the prosecution's narrative was unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appeal allowed, and the appellant acquitted, while the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name witnesses in the initial medico-legal report cast doubt on their status as eyewitnesses?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR, coupled with inconsistencies in medical evidence, entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid @ Chooran vs NotSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clauserecovery mashirsfurther inquiryillicit weapon recoveryCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant, Muhammad Shahid, sought post-arrest bail regarding an offense under the Sindh Arms Ordinance, 2013. The applicant had been charged with possessing illicit weapons, specifically a Kalashnikov and a grenade. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the offense, the alleged non-compliance with recovery procedures, and the fact that the applicant had already been granted bail in a related case. The Court observed that the recovery of the weapon lacked independent witnesses, indicating a failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the applicant was no longer required for investigation purposes. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and granted bail, emphasizing the principle that the law favors liberty over incarceration when evidence tampering is unlikely and the offense is non-prohibitory.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for the purpose of investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheed Khan vs Piya Dharani and another2015 MLD 147 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheed Khan vs Piya Dharani & OthersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 325 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-20
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal assaultoverlapping attributionbail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Shahbaz seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 250 dated 02.08.2012, registered under Sections 337-A(v), 337-A(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari, after having been refused bail by the courts below. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the accused to post-arrest bail where multiple co-accused are attributed a similar injury resulting in a single wound on the victim, and the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since only a single injury was found on the victim's head despite multiple imputations, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, the petition should be allowed. The key principle laid down is that bail is granted as a rule in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause when the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes and conflicting or overlapping role attributions create further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does attribution of a similar injury to multiple co-accused regarding a single wound on the victim make a case for further inquiry under bail adjudication?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is behind bars and no longer required for further police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Muhammad Zaigham Etc.2015 LHC 6556 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Rukh vs NotSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismidentification paradefurther inquirybenefit of doubtprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Muhammad Shah Rukh, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 85/2014 registered at Police Station Landhi, Karachi East, under sections 147, 148, 149, 435, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail where his name was not mentioned in the FIR, surfaced only through spy information, and where identification was made by the police officer rather than an independent witness, leaving his actual involvement subject to further inquiry. The Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as no specific overt act or use of explosive substances was attributed to the applicant and general allegations were made. The key principle laid down is that where the identity of an accused is based on spy information and police identification without corroborative independent evidence linking him to the specific crime, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused, and bail granted accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused's name is not mentioned in the FIR and surfaces only through spy information?
  • Can identification by a police officer in an identification parade serve as sole basis to deny bail in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when general and collective allegations are attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State and another2015 LHC 6922 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-23
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycriminal procedurebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shafique, who was charged under sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have held the deceased while a co-accused inflicted fatal injuries, was entitled to bail given the specific facts and the principle of consistency. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was not attributed any specific injury to the deceased and that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The Court emphasized that mere involvement in a heinous offense does not preclude the grant of bail when a case for further inquiry is made out. The key principle laid down is that where a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail, the rule of consistency dictates that the petitioner should be granted the same concession, especially when the case calls for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role in a murder case has already been granted bail?
  • Is the mere allegation of holding a victim during a murder sufficient to deny bail when no injury is attributed to the accused?
  • Does the heinous nature of an offense automatically preclude the grant of bail if the case otherwise calls for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Judge Family Court, Multan and 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 612 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Khan Sawati vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and otherss2015 PLJ SC 652, 2015 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-25
  Public interest litigationGovernment contractTender processBona fidesConstitutional jurisdictionContract awardSpeculative litigationNGO standingJudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed in public interest. The petition disputed the anticipated award of a contract for electro-mechanical works (Lot 3.2) of the Golden Gol Hydropower Project, alleging lack of competition and potential loss to the public exchequer after only one bid was received in the second tender round. The core legal question revolved around the appellant's standing and the sufficiency of evidence in public interest litigation challenging government contract awards. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to present concrete, substantiated allegations of wrongdoing against the contract awardee. The Court found the challenge speculative, hypothetical, and lacking in disclosure regarding the appellant's legal status and activities, thus failing to demonstrate bona fides. Key principles reiterated include that public interest litigation must transparently serve public interest, not vested interests, and must be founded on concrete, verifiable facts, not speculative or malicious attacks that impede executive functions, noting that the delay caused by the litigation actually harmed public interest.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Khan Sawati vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water & Power, Islamabad and others2015 PLJ SC 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  public interest litigationwrit petitioncontract awardbona fidesjudicial reviewspeculative litigationexecutive functions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition filed in the public interest regarding the award of a government contract for the Golden Gol Hydro power Project. The appellant, claiming to represent a non-governmental organization, contested the bidding process for Lot 3.2, alleging a lack of competition and potential loss to the public exchequer. The core legal question was whether the Court should interfere with executive contract awards based on unsubstantiated, speculative claims in a public interest petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to provide concrete evidence of wrongdoing or substantiate the allegations. The Court affirmed that while public interest litigation is a vital tool, it must be grounded in verifiable facts and demonstrate the petitioner's bona fides. The Court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to entertain speculative or malicious attacks that impede executive functions. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition lacked the necessary transparency and factual basis to warrant judicial intervention, emphasizing that public interest litigation must serve the public good rather than private or vested interests.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements for a petitioner to maintain a public interest litigation?
  • Can a court interfere in the executive process of contract awarding based on speculative or hypothetical allegations?
  • Is it necessary for a public interest litigant to disclose their legal status and bona fides to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Butt and anothers vs The State and others2015 YLR 877 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-08-05
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausefair trialjudicial biasdefamationindependence of judiciarydue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 500, 501, 504, and 505(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged display of defamatory banners concerning a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether observations made by the lower court regarding defamation of a judicial institution prejudiced the right to a fair trial. The Islamabad High Court held that since the offences fell within the non-prohibitory clause and section 505(2) was not attracted, bail should be granted favourably as a rule. The court emphasized that judges must maintain strict impartiality, avoid any perception of bias, and ensure a fair trial and due process as guaranteed under the Constitution, and that courts cannot treat offences as extraordinary simply because they relate to the judiciary. The petition was accepted and bail was granted to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when offences fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does expressing views that an offence maligned the judiciary vitiate the perception of judicial impartiality and prejudice the right to a fair trial?
  • Whether Section 505(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted in cases involving general allegations of defamation without meeting the statutory ingredients?
  • What are the defining exceptional grounds for refusing bail in cases falling within the non-prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique and others vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-17
  murderdacoitytest identification paradecapital punishmentbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Vehari, whereby the appellant Muhammad Shafique was convicted under section 302(b) and section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death and imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involve the reliability of a delayed test identification parade where witnesses failed to ascribe any specific role to the accused, the legal weight of an uncorroborated eyewitness introduced at a later stage, and the sufficiency of evidence based on retracted or flawed recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the identification parade suffered from fatal legal infirmities due to delay and the absence of role attribution, and that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where witnesses fail to ascribe any specific role to the accused at the time of identification?
  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on the basis of a flawed identification parade and discrepant ocular testimony?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a test identification parade render the proceeding unreliable?
  • What is the effect of introducing a crucial eyewitness at a subsequent stage without mentioning them in the initial first information report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq, etc. vs Asj/ J.O.P, etc.2015 LHC 6316 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Khan vs Inamullah2015 P Cr. L J 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-09
  pre-arrest bailcancellation of bailabetmentrule of consistencycompromisemala fideNational Judicial Policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for bail cancellation was filed by the complainant seeking to set aside the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu, in a case registered under Sections 324/109/34, PPC. The main legal question before the High Court was whether the pre-arrest bail of a co-accused charged solely with abetment should be cancelled when the principal accused had already been granted post-arrest bail based on a compromise that went unchallenged by the complainant. The High Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the pre-arrest bail. The Court held that cancelling pre-arrest bail would be futile under the rule of consistency, as the respondent would immediately qualify for post-arrest bail following arrest. Furthermore, where the principal accused was released following a compromise, the complainant's attempt to pursue the abettor demonstrated ulterior motives and mala fide. Exceptional grounds and strong circumstances are necessary to recall a bail once granted, which were absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail granted to an abettor be cancelled when the principal accused has already been released on bail without challenge under the rule of consistency?
  • Whether the prosecution's continuation of proceedings against an abettor after compromising with the principal accused indicates mala fide warranting pre-arrest bail?
  • What grounds are required for a court to cancel bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi, etc. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 5381 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-20
  post-arrest bailmurderlalkaraproclaimed offenderabscondancecriminal facilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioners filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 161 of 2013 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kala, District D.G. Khan, involving the murder of three persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were attributed a specific role of raising a commanding lalkara, facilitating the offense, and remaining fugitive from law as proclaimed offenders for a prolonged period, were entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail, noting their specific nomination in the FIR, active facilitation, abscondance, and the availability of sufficient incriminating evidence connecting them to the crime. The key principles laid down include that accused persons who remain fugitive from law and are declared proclaimed offenders, facing serious allegations with supporting incriminating evidence and attribution of motive, do not make out a case for post-arrest bail at the early stages of trial.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons who remain fugitive from law and are declared proclaimed offenders entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does raising a commanding lalkara and facilitating co-accused in a murder case constitute sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Whether sufficient incriminating evidence and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. connect an accused to the crime to disentitle them to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Collector of Customs, MCC, Islamabad and others2015 PTD (Trib) 1090 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2014-07-07
  rectification applicationfunctus officiocustoms confiscationsmuggled vehiclepower of reviewclerical mistakeCustoms Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This application for rectification was filed before the Customs Appellate Tribunal seeking to set aside an appellate order and secure the unconditional release of a confiscated vehicle. The core legal question was whether a final judgment of the Tribunal can be re-opened, annulled, or modified through an application for rectification beyond correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that once a judgment is signed and announced, the Tribunal becomes functus officio and cannot re-open or modify its decision through rectification. The key principle laid down is that the scope of rectification is strictly confined to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from accidental slips or omissions, and it cannot be used to review, set aside, or alter a judgment on merits, particularly where the relevant statute does not provide a substantive right of review.

  Questions settled

  • Can a final judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal be re-opened or modified through an application for rectification?
  • What is the scope of powers to rectify a judgment under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the Customs Act, 1969 provide the remedy of review for orders passed by the Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Addl. District Judge, Kot Addu District Fargarh, and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 487 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Muhammad Aslam vs The State Muhammad Shafi and another2015 LHC 3111 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27
  murderprivate defenceexculpatory statementconviction set asidebenefit of doubtwater disputecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his co-accused murdered the deceased during a dispute over water irrigation. The trial court acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant, holding that he had exceeded his right of private defence. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, noting that the appellant had also sustained multiple injuries during the same occurrence, which the prosecution had concealed, and that the prosecution version was disbelieved. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted within the lawful right of private defence. The Court held that where prosecution evidence is disbelieved, the accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and that the appellant's established injuries brought his case within the protective ambit of the right of private defence under section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the appellant's conviction was set aside, he was acquitted, and the revision for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of an accused recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected as a whole when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
  • Does the right of private defence of the body extend to causing death when an accused receives multiple injuries during an assault?
  • Can an appellant be convicted for exceeding the right of private defence when the prosecution conceals injuries sustained by the accused during the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulo Ahmed vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilityabscondencemurderconstructive liabilitypre-planned conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a murder case registered under Sections 302, 337-H(ii), 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant, who was armed at the scene but did not inflict the fatal injury, sought bail, arguing that his role was limited to vicarious liability and that his abscondence did not prove guilt. The core legal question was whether the applicant could be denied bail based on the principle of common intention despite the absence of a specific overt act. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be assessed at the bail stage. The court determined that where the FIR and witness statements indicate a pre-planned conspiracy and shared common intention, the applicant's presence at the scene, coupled with his abscondence, provided reasonable grounds to believe he was involved in the crime. Consequently, the court affirmed that bail is not a matter of right when prima facie evidence suggests the applicant acted in furtherance of a common object.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be assessed at the bail stage?
  • Does the absence of a specific overt act, such as firing a fatal shot, automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Is abscondence a relevant factor to consider when determining whether to grant bail to an accused?
  • Can an accused be denied bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe they shared a common intention with the principal offender?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and 22015 PLJ Lahore 998 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir and 4 others vs Muhammad Rafique and 4 others2015 PLJ Lahore 109 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabaz vs The State and 6 others2015 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 95, 2015 YLR 2211 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabaz vs State and 6 others2015 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 95 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sayyah-Ud-Din vs Director-General, Peshawar2015 CLC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-05
  urban planningresidential zoningcommercial activityPeshawar Development Authoritybuilding regulationsfundamental rightspublic interestwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns nine writ petitions filed by individuals operating 'guest houses' in residential properties within Hayatabad Township, Peshawar. The petitioners challenged notices issued by the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) threatening to close their businesses, arguing that such actions violated their fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether commercial activities, specifically guest houses, are permissible in buildings allotted and approved for residential purposes under the prevailing urban planning regulations. Relying on the precedent set in 'Principal International School v. Government', the Court held that the use of residential buildings for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Building Regulations, 1985, as it violates the terms of allotment and burdens planned amenities. The Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that public interest and urban planning requirements supersede individual commercial interests. The Court directed the petitioners to cease operations within 30 days and mandated the PDA to enforce building regulations uniformly and without discrimination, requiring a progress report on enforcement actions against other unauthorized commercial entities.

  Questions settled

  • Can residential buildings in Hayatabad Township be used for commercial guest house operations?
  • Does the Peshawar Development Authority have the legal authority to enforce building regulations against commercial use of residential plots?
  • Is the use of residential buildings for commercial purposes a violation of the terms of allotment?
  • Must a development authority enforce building regulations uniformly without discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sauleh vs NABSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State etc.2015 LHC 4330 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-29
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementtest identification paraderobberyfurther inquiryunnamed accused
  Summary & questions settled

  Petitioner Muhammad Sarwar sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 364 registered under Section 392/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Samundari, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not nominated in the FIR, was implicated through a belated supplementary statement after 25 months without a disclosed source of information or test identification parade, and recovery of a nominal amount was subject to further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the delayed implication without an identification parade or disclosed source of information brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the holding of a test identification parade is mandatory where unnamed accused are subsequently implicated, and that mere registration of other criminal cases without conviction does not disentitle an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not nominated in the FIR and is implicated through a belated supplementary statement?
  • Is a test identification parade mandatory when an accused whose name does not appear in the FIR is subsequently arrested?
  • Does the mere registration of other criminal cases without conviction disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State etc2015 LHC 8126 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-01
  appeal against acquittalpolice encounterdouble presumption of innocencechance witnessanti-terrorismabductioncorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.IV, Lahore, from charges in a private complaint under Sections 302, 365, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an alleged abduction and subsequent extrajudicial killing framed as a police encounter. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence concerning chance witnesses, the validity of a police encounter defense, and the strict standards required to overturn an acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's evaluation of evidence—disbelieving a tainted star witness who failed to substantiate the sequence of events and whose presence was contradicted by a defense witness—was well-reasoned and free from misreading or non-reading of the record. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal after a regular trial enjoys double presumption of innocence, which cannot be disturbed without strong and exceptional reasons, and that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal recorded by a trial court can be interfered with without strong and exceptional reasons showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Can a tainted piece of evidence furnish legal corroboration to another tainted piece of evidence?
  • Does the testimony of an uncorroborated chance witness who fails to establish his presence at the scene inspire confidence for a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Mehboob Alam etc.2015 LHC 2889 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-20
  criminal appealacquittalidentification parademurderbenefit of doubtpostmortem delayrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the identity of the assailant and the reliability of the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts, including unexplained delays in the postmortem examination, which cast suspicion on the genuineness of the FIR. Furthermore, the Court found the identification parade unreliable because the accused was already known to the witnesses, and the recovery of the alleged murder weapon after one month was deemed implausible. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence is contradictory, unreliable, and fails to establish a coherent narrative, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and an acquittal judgment should not be interfered with lightly.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a postmortem examination cast doubt on the authenticity of the FIR?
  • Can an identification parade be considered reliable if the accused was already known to the prosecution witnesses prior to the parade?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon after a significant lapse of time sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to provide a consistent narrative regarding the identity of the accused necessitate an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Mehboob Alam and others2015 LHC 2889, 2015 YLR 2734 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-20
  acquittal appealmurderidentification paradedelayed post-mortemlast-seen evidenceweapon recoverybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondent No. 1 by the trial court in a murder case registered under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an incident where the deceased was fatally stabbed during a night intrusion. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the authenticity of the FIR in view of delayed post-mortem and police presence at the hospital, the reliability of a test identification parade involving a suspect allegedly known to witnesses, and the evidentiary value of a belated weapon recovery and last-seen evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions, delayed post-mortem casting doubt on the FIR's timing, tainted identification proceedings, and weak circumstantial evidence. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are shown to have known the accused beforehand, subsequent identification parades become doubtful, and cumulative discrepancies in ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence warrant the sustenance of an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination casts serious doubt on the authenticity and timing of the FIR?
  • Can the identification of an accused during a test identification parade be relied upon when evidence shows the witnesses were already acquainted with the accused?
  • Is a belated recovery of a blood-stained weapon after a significant lapse of time sufficient to substantiate a capital charge?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of last-seen evidence in isolation when evaluating a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and others vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-25
  murderdacoitycriminal appealdeath sentencebenefit of doubtacquitted co-accusedindependent corroborationocular accountmedical evidence conflict
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentences of the appellants under sections 302(b) and 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of sentences, following a trial court judgment regarding a dacoity-cum-murder incident where the deceased sustained a single fatal firearm injury. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be convicted on the basis of ocular testimony that was identical to the testimony rejected for co-accused who were acquitted, in the absence of independent corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that where ocular evidence is disbelieved against a set of co-accused who faced the same charges, it cannot safely be used to convict remaining co-accused without strong and independent corroboration on material particulars. Finding that the recoveries of weapons and cash were inconsequential and that medical evidence indicated a single fire shot attributed jointly to both convicted and acquitted persons, the court extended the benefit of the doubt, set aside the convictions and sentences, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused can form the basis of conviction for remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does a weapon recovery without a matching crime empty serve as corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
  • Whether a general joint attribution of a single firearm injury by multiple accused persons sustains individual murder convictions when no specific role is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and another vs Muhammad Riaz and another2015 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-09
  Qatl-i-amdcompounding of offencecompromiseacquittaldeath sentenceQisas and Diyatcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Sarwar against his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his trial for murder. The core legal question was whether the court could permit the compounding of the offence of Qatl-i-amd pursuant to a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased, and what the legal effect of such a compromise would be under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court, having verified the genuineness of the compromise through a report from the Sessions Judge, found that the legal heirs had voluntarily waived their rights of Qisas and Diyat. The court held that the composition of the offence, having been arrived at without duress, must be given effect under Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, ruling that the composition of an offence under the relevant section mandates the acquittal of the accused. The death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was ordered to be released.

  Questions settled

  • Does the composition of an offence under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a death sentence be set aside based on a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Is the court required to verify the genuineness of a compromise before allowing the compounding of an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz vs Nadeem Tahir Syed, Adj, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 738 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sareer Khan and 10 others vs Arbab Sultan Muhammad and 6 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqib vs S.M. Mushtaq2015 YLR 723 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sanawar Khan vs Akhtar Khan and 2 others2015 CLC 1253 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-25
  constitutional petitionejectmentpersonal bona fide needdefault in payment of rentconcurrent findingsrent appealprocedural defect in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner-landlord's rent applications for the ejectment of the respondent-tenants from the demised premises. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner established grounds of default, personal bona fide need, and additions/alterations, and whether a procedural defect in recording evidence vitiated the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts were based on proper appraisal of evidence, that the petitioner admitted in cross-examination that no default had been committed, that no new cause of action or sufficient evidence was shown for personal bona fide need given the petitioner's occupation of upper floors, and that procedural objections regarding the recording of evidence cannot be raised for the first time before the High Court without showing prejudice. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in rent matters is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave misreading of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by rent courts can be interfered with under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without showing a jurisdictional error or misreading of law?
  • Can an objection regarding the mode of recording cross-examination in rent proceedings be raised for the first time before the High Court?
  • Does a landlord's previous dismissal of an ejectment application bar a subsequent application without proof of a fresh cause of action for personal bona fide need?
  • Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 are attracted when the landlord is already in occupation of other portions of the same building?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh and 2 otherss vs Province of Sindh through District2015 PLD Sindh 14 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh alias Dubi Gadehi vs The State2015 YLR 2520 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-22
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtindependent corroborationchemical examiner reportprocedural delaypolice evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of heroin. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant evidentiary contradictions and procedural lapses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge, citing the absence of independent witnesses despite the recovery occurring in a populated area, material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding the preparation of the recovery memo and the identity of the duty officer, and the failure to produce the arrival entry at the police station. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the inordinate, unexplained delay of over two months in sending the sample to the chemical examiner, in violation of the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001, created a fatal lacuna. The Court reaffirmed that where prosecution evidence is solely based on police testimony, it requires independent corroboration, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case from a populated area vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics trials?
  • Must the prosecution provide independent corroboration when its entire case rests on the testimony of police officials?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to produce the police station arrival entry in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem. vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry2015 LHC 3373 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Warind vs Maziiar and 2 others2015 CLD 655 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 126 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14
  suspension of sentencestatutory grounddelay in disposal of appeallife imprisonmentbail pending appealhardened criminal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment awarded under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the statutory ground of non-disposal of his appeal within two years pursuant to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail due to the delay in deciding his appeal beyond the statutory period of two years, and whether he fell within the exclusionary proviso as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The Lahore High Court held that since the appeal had remained undecided for more than two years without any fault or delay on the part of the appellant, and in the absence of any previous conviction or evidence showing him to be a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, the petitioner was entitled to the statutory concession. The court laid down the principle that a convict serving life imprisonment whose appeal is not decided within two years is entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided the delay is not attributable to the appellant and the convict does not fall within the exclusionary proviso.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to suspension of sentence if his appeal is not decided within two years?
  • Whether the delay in the decision of an appeal occasioned by an act or omission of the appellant disentitles him to statutory bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal under the proviso to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Government of Punjab through its Chief Secretary2015 PLJ Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2015 LHC 3373, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1395 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-17
  service terminationequivalence certificateHigher Education Commissioncontract appointmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders terminating his services as a Junior Engineer, Mechanical (B.S.-17) on contract basis and dismissing his departmental representation on the ground that his degree in B.Sc. Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering was irrelevant instead of B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had fulfilled the condition of providing an equivalence certificate issued by the Higher Education Commission to equate his degree with Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of job suitability. The Lahore High Court held that the communication issued by the Higher Education Commission confirming the status and equivalence of the degrees satisfied the condition imposed by the department. The Court laid down the principle that where an employee fulfills the conditional requirement of providing an equivalence certificate regarding academic qualifications as mandated by the employer, the employee becomes entitled to have their case for reinstatement considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a degree in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering is considered equivalent to Mechanical Engineering for employment purposes?
  • Does an employee who produces an official communication regarding degree status satisfy the requirement of providing an equivalence certificate?
  • Is an employer bound to consider an employee's reinstatement upon the fulfillment of conditions imposed in a departmental representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem s/o Muhammad Umar Pathan 1. Sharif Taj s/o SherSindh High Court · -
  narcotics smugglingcontrol of narcotic substancespossession of narcoticsburden of proofcriminal liability of drivertransportation of contrabandconscious possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal appeals against the judgment of the Special Judge, C.N.S., Hyderabad, convicting the appellants—the owner, driver, second driver, and conductor of a bus—under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for transporting 420 kilograms of charas and 17 kilograms of opium. The core legal question was whether the crew of a vehicle can be held criminally liable for narcotics transported openly on the roof of their vehicle, despite claims of ignorance or lack of exclusive possession. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband. The court affirmed that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the prosecution establishes that the accused had physical custody or control of the vehicle, the burden shifts to the accused to prove they did not knowingly possess the narcotics. The court laid down the principle that drivers and crew members are responsible for the contents of their vehicle, and they cannot be absolved of liability for transporting contraband openly.

  Questions settled

  • Can the driver and crew of a vehicle be held criminally liable for narcotics transported in the vehicle if they claim lack of knowledge?
  • Does the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 apply to the driver and crew of a vehicle transporting narcotics?
  • Is the association of private mashirs mandatory for a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused once the prosecution establishes physical custody of the narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Abdul Sattar Khan & 5 others2015 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 302 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Gul vs Mst. Sakeena through L.Rs. and another2015 CLC 765 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Arain vs the StateSindh High Court · -
  murder referencedeath sentenceocular testimonymedical evidenceballistic reportrecovery of weaponjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a jail appeal and a murder reference for the confirmation of a death sentence stemming from a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, where the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) and section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and whether the appellant's defence and claims of false implication or substitution held any weight. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and ballistic reports, firmly established the guilt of the appellant. The court ruled that minor contradictions do not dent the prosecution case, that the presence of the witnesses was natural, and that no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a lesser sentence. The conviction and death sentence were accordingly maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in ocular accounts are sufficient to create a dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Does the medical evidence alone identify the perpetrator of a crime or is it limited to confirming the seat and nature of injuries?
  • What is the burden of proof when an accused takes a special plea or claims false substitution?
  • Whether the absence of mitigating circumstances warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty when a case is proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 6 others vs Federal Public Service Commission2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 303 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealpermanent absorptionlateral entrycivil servantpromotion prospectsML&C Groupdeputationseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals challenging a notification dated 11.6.2010, which permanently absorbed eleven officers from other occupational groups into the Military Lands and Cantonment (ML&C) Group. The appellants, Grade-17 officers of the ML&C Group, contended that this absorption was illegal, violated established recruitment rules, and blocked their promotion prospects. The respondents argued that the absorption was necessary to address a staff shortage, was approved by the competent authority, and did not violate any laws. The Tribunal held that the absorption was lawful, citing provisions in the ESTACODE that permit lateral entry and transfer from other groups to meet shortages in the ML&C Group. The Tribunal found no illegality in the process, noting that the Prime Minister, as the competent authority, had approved the action. However, the Tribunal emphasized that while the absorption was valid, the seniority of existing civil servants must not be disturbed by such practices, as good governance requires transparency and fairness in career progression to avoid frustration and unnecessary litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the permanent absorption of officers from other occupational groups into the Military Lands and Cantonment Group permissible under the ESTACODE?
  • Can a service appeal be dismissed on the grounds of limitation if the Supreme Court has already remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on merits?
  • Does the absorption of officers from other groups into a specific service group automatically invalidate the promotion prospects of existing incumbents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Alvi vs SHO and others.2015 LHC 5081 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Boota Muhammad Akram vs The State The State and another2015 LHC 3117 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-31
  extra-judicial confessioncapital sentencebenefit of doubtmurder trialre-appraisal of evidenceweapon recoveryenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and sufficiency of an extra-judicial confession and a subsequent weapon recovery as the primary basis for conviction in a capital case where the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons. The Lahore High Court held that an extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence that requires strong, unimpeachable corroboration from independent sources, and it cannot solely sustain a capital conviction when made after a considerable delay before interested witnesses. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that extra-judicial confessions must be treated with utmost care and caution and cannot form the basis of a conviction in a murder case without strong, reliable, and independent corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on a capital charge solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession?
  • What degree of corroboration is required when the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession?
  • Does a delayed extra-judicial confession made to closely related witnesses hold probative value in a murder trial?
  • Can a recovery of a weapon sustain a conviction when the primary evidence of an extra-judicial confession has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs State, etc.PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 234 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-03
  post-arrest bailforgeryrevenue record manipulationhabitual offenderfraudanticorruptioncriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and Mian Muhammad Hussain Munna Sheikh, who were accused in an FIR registered for forgery and corruption involving the manipulation of revenue records. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the allegations of fabricating revenue documents, such as Roznamcha entries and mutations, in connivance with revenue staff. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail at this stage. The ratio of the decision rests on the existence of sufficient incriminating material connecting the petitioners to the alleged fraud and forgery, coupled with the observation that the petitioners were allegedly involved in numerous other cases of a similar nature, suggesting they were habitual offenders. The key principle laid down is that where there is prima facie evidence of serious fraud and forgery regarding immovable property, and the accused are allegedly habitual offenders involved in multiple similar cases, the concession of bail should be denied to protect the integrity of the revenue record system.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in the forgery of revenue records?
  • Does the alleged involvement of an accused in multiple similar cases of land grabbing disentitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Can a court direct the trial court to expedite the conclusion of a trial while dismissing a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs Additional District and Sessions Judge and 22015 PLJ Lahore 615, 2015 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-24
  recovery of dowerrecovery of dowrydeferred dowerprompt dowerFamily Courts Actsolitary statementwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner/husband challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts which decreed the respondent/wife's suit for the recovery of dowry articles and dower. The petitioner contended that the dower was deferred ('Ghair Mu'ajjal') and could only be claimed upon divorce or death, and that the dowry articles were not formally proved. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, does not apply to family court proceedings, and a wife's solitary statement is sufficient to prove her dowry claim. On the question of dower, the Court ruled that dower is an inalienable right of the wife that vests upon consummation of marriage. If no specific period is stipulated for the payment of deferred dower, it is deemed prompt and payable immediately upon demand. Consequently, the dissolution of marriage is not a pre-condition for filing a suit to recover deferred dower.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, applicable to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a wife's solitary statement be sufficient to decree her claim for the recovery of dowry articles?
  • Whether deferred dower without a specified period of payment is treated as prompt dower payable on demand?
  • Is the dissolution of marriage or pronouncement of Talaq a pre-condition for a wife to file a suit for the recovery of deferred dower?
  Read full judgment →