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. 233,147 judgments in total.

• Khalid Mehmood etc. vs The State etc.2015 LHC 7869 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitysupplementary statementinvestigation reportmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioners in a case registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an alleged murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the inconsistencies between the FIR and the supplementary statement, the lack of recovery from their possession, and the investigation report finding them innocent. The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail because the complainant's supplementary statement attributed the fatal injury to a co-accused, thereby excluding the petitioners from the direct act of firing. Furthermore, the investigation agency found the petitioners innocent, and the case against them became one of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be refused based solely on vicarious liability without positive evidence of a specific role in the crime. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioners were admitted to bail, as their continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose given the tentative nature of the prosecution's case against them.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused on the basis of vicarious liability without positive evidence of a specific role in the crime?
  • Does a finding of innocence by the investigating agency render a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail appropriate when the complainant's supplementary statement contradicts the initial FIR regarding the specific role of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid lqbal and 2 others vs Mirza Khan and another2015 PSC 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  second criminal review petitiondeath sentence commutationfinality of judgmentlife expectancy doctrineSupreme Court Rules 1980writ jurisdictiondouble jeopardy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a second criminal review petition and related proceedings seeking to commute their death sentences to life imprisonment. They argued that because they had already served the equivalent of a life sentence during the pendency of their appeals, they were entitled to relief under the principles of life expectancy and curative justice, citing precedents like Dilawar Hussain. The core legal questions were whether a second review petition is maintainable, whether a death sentence can be commuted solely because the convict served a full life term during the pendency of legal remedies, and whether Supreme Court judgments can be challenged via writ petitions. The Court held that a second review petition is barred by Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. It further held that once a judgment attains finality after the exhaustion of legal remedies, it cannot be re-agitated. The Court established that serving a sentence during the pendency of an appeal does not automatically entitle a convict to commutation, nor does it violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second criminal review petition maintainable before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does the fact that a convict has served a full term of life imprisonment during the pendency of legal remedies automatically entitle them to commutation of a death sentence?
  • Can a judgment of the Supreme Court be challenged through a writ petition filed in a High Court?
  • Does the enhancement of a sentence by an appellate court constitute double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs State and 2 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs Mr Asghar Ali, Advocate2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-17
  specific performancedeclaratory suitlimitation periodunregistered sale deedmutationcivil revisionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and permanent injunction while dismissing the petitioner's suit for cancellation of sale deeds. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent could enforce two unregistered sale agreements that were allegedly superseded by a subsequent mutation, and whether the suit was maintainable given the issues of non-payment of consideration and the law of limitation. The High Court held that the evidence demonstrated the initial sale agreements were never acted upon and were effectively replaced by a subsequent mutation, which the parties had executed and performed. The Court found that the respondent's suit was based on documents that failed to create title and was also time-barred, having been filed five years after the agreements. The key principles laid down are that unregistered sale agreements do not create title or interest in land, and a suit for specific performance or declaration based on such agreements is not maintainable if the claim is time-barred or if the agreements were superseded by subsequent valid mutations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for declaration be maintained on the basis of unregistered sale agreements that have been superseded by a subsequent mutation?
  • Does an unregistered sale agreement create title or interest in land under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable if filed beyond the three-year limitation period?
  • Can a party succeed in a suit for declaration when their pleadings and evidence are contradictory regarding the underlying transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs Haji Muhammad ANWARAnd 2 others -2015 YLR 1845 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-17
  revision petitionsale agreementmutationunregistered documentsspecific performancelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts which decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and permanent injunction and dismissed the petitioner's suit for cancellation of sale deeds. The core legal questions involved whether unregistered sale agreements created valid title, whether the subsequent revenue mutation superseded the earlier agreements, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the unregistered sale documents did not create any title or interest in the disputed land under the relevant law, that the subsequent mutation replaced the earlier agreements, and that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation having been filed after five years. The key principles laid down are that unregistered sale deeds cannot form the basis of a declaratory suit to establish title, and that a suit for specific performance of a contract must be instituted within the prescribed period of three years from the accrual of the cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unregistered sale document create any title, right, or interest in disputed land?
  • Is a declaratory suit based on unregistered sale deeds maintainable under the law?
  • What is the period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract?
  • Whether subsequent revenue mutations can supersede prior unregistered agreements to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed Securities Private Limited and 3 others Appellants vs Akif2015 CLD 562 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2013-11-29Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal Khan vs Regional Police Officer, Multan, etc.2015 LHC 7745 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal and 2 otherss vs Mirza Khan and others2015 PLJ SC 482, 2015 PSC 110, 2015 PLD Supreme Court 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-26
  second review petitiondeath sentenceexpectancy of lifecomplete justiceper incuriamfinality of judgmentdouble jeopardycommutation of sentenceinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a second criminal review petition and a civil appeal challenging the maintenance of death sentences. The primary legal question was whether a convict who has served a period equivalent to life imprisonment during the pendency of legal proceedings or due to executive delay in execution is entitled to commutation of a death sentence under the doctrine of expectancy of life. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that once a conviction and sentence have attained finality after the exhaustion of all legal remedies, including the first review, a second review petition is expressly barred under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court clarified that while it possesses inherent powers under Articles 184(3), 187, and 188 of the Constitution to revisit per incuriam judgments to ensure complete justice, such powers are not a matter of right for parties to re-agitate settled issues. The principle of expectancy of life is a factor for judicial discretion during trial or appeal but does not automatically entitle a condemned prisoner to commutation after finality of judgment.

  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal & others vs Mirza Khan and others2015 PLJ SC 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  second review petitioncapital punishmentlife expectancyquantum of sentencefinality of judgmentwrit petition against supreme courtdouble jeopardyper incuriam
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the competency of second criminal review petitions and collateral challenges filed by convicts under sentence of death, who seek the commutation of their capital punishment to life imprisonment on the ground that they have already undergone a period of incarceration equal to or exceeding twenty-five years during the pendency of their legal remedies. The core legal questions involve whether a second review petition is maintainable against a final judgment of the Supreme Court, whether a writ petition is competent against a judgment of the apex court, and whether serving out a full term of life imprisonment during appellate proceedings automatically mandates the commutation of a death sentence based on the doctrines of life expectancy or double jeopardy. The Court held that a second review petition is expressly barred by the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, that a High Court cannot issue a writ against the Supreme Court under the Constitution, and that prolonged incarceration resulting from executive delays or the pendency of legal remedies does not, by itself, furnish a ground to reopen a final conviction or mitigate a death sentence unless supported by other mitigating circumstances recognized in jurisprudence. The key principles laid down are that finality attached to judicial judgments cannot be circumvented through subsequent review or collateral proceedings, and that Article 13(a) of the Constitution does not bar the enhancement or final determination of sentences by an appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second criminal review petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court after the dismissal of the first review petition?
  • Does the serving out of a full term of life imprisonment during the pendency of legal proceedings bar the maintenance of a death sentence?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ against a judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration resulting from the pendency of judicial remedies or executive delay attracts the doctrine of life expectancy to automatically commute a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ibrahim through L.Rs, and others vs Chaudhry Mazhar Hussain and others2015 CLC 761 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain, etcs vs State, etcPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 59 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice investigationinnocent in police reportmurdertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qadir Pur Ran, District Multan. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when they were nominated in the FIR with a generalized role, no witness saw them commit the actual firing, and they were declared innocent in two successive police investigations. The Lahore High Court held that since no direct evidence connects the petitioners to the firing and their involvement requires further probe after police found them innocent in two investigations, their case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing that police investigation findings, while not binding, cannot be altogether ignored at the bail stage when assessing further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent in successive police investigations?
  • Does a generalized role without direct eyewitness evidence of firing bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of police investigation findings at the post-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs The State2015 MLD 938 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-10
  dying declarationmurderadmissibility of evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealQanun-e-Shahadat Ordercircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Razia Bibi, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of a statement made by the deceased to a doctor regarding the cause of her injuries, which the prosecution relied upon as a dying declaration in the absence of eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the statement was admissible under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, as it related to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in the victim's death. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that a dying declaration does not require independent corroboration if it is intrinsically reliable, rings true, and is supported by medical evidence—in this case, the fracture of the fourth cervical vertebra. The Court established that a statement made to a doctor by a victim who is compos mentis and oriented in time and space constitutes a valid dying declaration, even if recorded without a formal oath or in the absence of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement made by a deceased person to a doctor regarding the cause of their injuries admissible as a dying declaration?
  • Does a dying declaration require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a capital case?
  • Can a conviction be based on a dying declaration if the deceased was not under the expectation of death at the time of the statement?
  • Does the delay in reporting an incident to the police automatically invalidate a dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Farooq Tipu and another vs Secretay, Ministry of Finance, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad2015 PLC (C.S.) 1091 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2015-05-20
  civil servant statusPakistan RailwaysFederal Service Tribunal jurisdictionworkman definitionFactories ActWorkmen's Compensation ActRailway Policeservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses multiple review petitions and an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the legal status of Pakistan Railway employees and the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether Railway employees qualify as "civil servants" under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or are excluded due to their governance by other statutory rules or their status as "workers" or "workmen." The Tribunal held that Railway employees are not a monolithic class. Employees falling within the definitions of "worker" or "workman" under the Factories Act, 1934, or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are not civil servants. Conversely, those not meeting these definitions are civil servants holding posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation, thus falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal further clarified that Railway Police personnel are civil servants. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, and the application for rejection of the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of Pakistan Railways considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over Railway employees who do not fall under the definition of 'worker' or 'workman'?
  • Can a person who was not a party to the original appeal file a review petition under Section 4A of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2014?
  • Are Railway Police personnel considered civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid etc State vs The State Khalid etc2015 LHC 7067 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-30
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradebenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealcorroborative evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the identity of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through identification parades and whether the alleged recoveries of ransom money and weapons provided sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court found the identification parade process flawed due to significant delays, the failure to hold separate parades for each accused, and the lack of descriptive details provided by the witnesses. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged recoveries were unreliable, as the currency notes lacked identifying marks and the weapons were not linked to the crime. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in holding a test identification parade render the identification evidence unreliable?
  • Is it legally required to conduct separate identification parades for each accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of recovered currency notes that lack specific identification marks?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Bashir vs Mst. Shamas-UN-Nisa and others2015 MLD 11 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-28Read full judgment →
• Khalid Bashir Mughal and others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 650 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-12-08
  domicile certificatestate subject certificatepublic service commissionwaiting listquota adjustmentwrit jurisdictionaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions challenging the eligibility of a candidate for the post of Section Officer (Law) and seeking appointment based on waiting list merit. The core legal questions involved the validity of a candidate's domicile and state subject certificates, the legality of holding dual domiciles, and the right of waiting-list candidates to be adjusted against unfilled quotas. The Court held that the candidate, Syed Ali Raza Gillani, obtained his domicile certificate from Lahore through fraud and concealment of facts, as he simultaneously held a valid domicile from Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, his candidature was declared void. The Court affirmed that a candidate cannot hold two domicile certificates for different places simultaneously. Applying the principle that an aggrieved person need not possess a strict juristic right to file a writ petition, the Court ruled that the petitioner, Khalid Bashir Mughal, was entitled to be appointed against the quota reserved for refugees settled in Pakistan, as no eligible candidate from that category qualified, and the relevant notification permitted adjustment of waiting-list candidates against unfilled quotas.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate simultaneously hold domicile certificates for two different jurisdictions?
  • Does a candidate on a waiting list have a right to be adjusted against a quota if no candidate from that specific unit qualifies?
  • Is a person who does not belong to a specific quota category an 'aggrieved person' entitled to challenge the eligibility of a candidate within that category?
  • What are the legal requirements for the issuance of a domicile certificate under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Act 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ahmed Khan Lund vs The State2015 PLD Sindh 20 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-31
  pre-arrest bailabetmentfurther inquiryterrorismjudicial discretioncriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was accused of orchestrating an attack on a court premises and judicial officers following election results. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not present at the scene and was implicated solely on the basis of alleged abetment, was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the allegation of abetment required strong, inspiring evidence, which was currently lacking, and that the applicant's case was distinguishable from co-accused who were physically present at the scene. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect innocent citizens from humiliation and to preserve their reputation. It established that where the charge against an accused is based on abetment and the accused was not present at the scene of the crime, the case often necessitates further inquiry, making the confirmation of pre-arrest bail appropriate to prevent punishment before conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 independent of the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of an accused from the scene of a crime, where the charge is limited to abetment, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • What are the three fundamental presumptions underlying the concept of pre-arrest bail in Pakistani law?
  • Can an accused be denied pre-arrest bail solely on the basis of an allegation of abetment without tangible evidence of conspiracy?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Abbas vs The State2015 MLD 138 · Board of Revenue · 2013-07-16Read full judgment →
• (1) Khalid (2)The State vs (1) The State and another (2) Khalid2015 LHC 8640 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-31
  capital punishmentcommutation of sentencemitigating circumstancemurderfalsus in uno falsus in omnibussifting grain from chaffunproved motivefirearm injurycriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence when co-accused are acquitted, the effect of an unproved motive on the quantum of sentence, and whether the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies in criminal administration of justice in Pakistan. The Lahore High Court held that the acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically result in the acquittal of others, provided the court sifts the grain from the chaff, and that an unproved motive coupled with the infliction of a single firearm injury without repetition serves as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment. The court established that the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable, and a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to avoid the extreme penalty of death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused necessitates the acquittal of the remaining accused under the same evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applicable in the criminal administration of justice in Pakistan?
  • Whether the infliction of a single firearm injury without repetition can be considered an extenuating circumstance to avoid the penalty of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Khali, Vice PresidenShafiullah and 79 others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd., and 5 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 1, PTCL 2015 CL.278 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-13Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad Khatian and others vs Liaquat Ali G. Kazi and othersSindh High Court · -
  administration suitpartition suitrejection of plaintinheritanceco-sharerlimitationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased, Ghulam Mustafa S. Kazi, seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the subject property and requesting a preliminary decree for accounts and partition. The defendants challenged the suit's maintainability, citing limitation, non-joinder of parties, and the existence of a prior gift. The core legal question was whether the suit, framed as an administration suit, was maintainable for the partition of identified property. The Court held that an administration suit is a specific mechanism for managing an estate, paying debts, and distributing the residue, distinct from a partition suit. Since the subject property was identified and the dispute was essentially between co-sharers regarding their respective shares, the suit was improperly framed as an administration suit. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, clarifying that the plaintiffs should instead pursue a suit for partition, which is not subject to limitation. The Court also dismissed the contempt application, finding no violation of the status quo order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for administration maintainable when the property is identified and the dispute is essentially for partition among co-sharers?
  • Does the law of limitation apply to a suit for the partition of joint property?
  • What is the distinction between an administration suit and a partition suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit is improperly framed as an administration suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad & 4 others vs Sultan Muhammad & 11 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-26Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State & another2015 LHC 4400 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessesacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, originally tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions in the ocular testimony and the acquittal of the co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It identified material contradictions between the complainant's statement and the inquest report, as well as unnatural conduct by the eyewitnesses who, despite claiming to be present, failed to intervene or attempt to apprehend the assailant. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of corroborative physical evidence, such as corresponding damage to the deceased's clothing. Consequently, the Court ruled that the incident was an unseen occurrence and the witnesses were not present. Establishing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses in failing to intervene during an attack renders their testimony unreliable?
  • Does a contradiction between the complainant's statement and the inquest report regarding the time of death create reasonable doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Bhatti and 2 others vs Serena Hotel Labour Union2015 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2014-10-25
  labor court jurisdictiontrade unionindustry-wise trade unionBalochistan Industrial Relations ActIndustrial Relations Actembezzlement complaintprovincial registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the 1st Labour Court Balochistan, which rejected the appellants' objection regarding jurisdiction and entertained a complaint filed under section 77 of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 by the president of the Quetta Serena Hotel Labour Union against its ex-office-bearers concerning alleged embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the establishment having branches in multiple provinces. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that since the union in question was registered under the provincial law (Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010) with membership confined solely to Quetta and not spanning multiple provinces, it did not qualify as an industry-wise trade union under the federal statute. Consequently, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 were not attracted, and the Labour Court possessed proper jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint involving a trade union whose membership is confined to a single province?
  • Does a trade union registered under the provincial enactment fall within the purview of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What constitutes an industry-wise trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and others vs The State and others2015 MLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-16
  free fightsudden provocationmitigating circumstancessuppression of injuriesappeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencereduction of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected criminal appeals arising from a trial court judgment regarding an incident that resulted in a death and multiple injuries during a sudden free fight. The core legal questions involved the determination of whether the occurrence constituted premeditated murder or a sudden free fight without premeditation, the evaluation of conflicting medical and ocular evidence, the legal effect of the prosecution's suppression of injuries sustained by the accused side, and the sustainability of an acquittal against co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the incident was a sudden free fight arising from a spur-of-the-moment dispute during a Panchayat without pre-planning or intent to commit murder, and noted that the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by the defence. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction of the primary appellant while reducing his sentence from imprisonment for life to fourteen years considering mitigating circumstances, treated the sentence already undergone as sufficient for the second appellant, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, reaffirming the double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases. The key principles laid down include the rule that in a sudden free fight without premeditation, the absence of specific intent to kill alters the culpability, and that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal order unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an incident arising spontaneously from a dispute during a Panchayat constitutes a premeditated murder or a sudden free fight?
  • Does the prosecution's suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party constitute a mitigating circumstance affecting the sentence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal granting a double presumption of innocence?
  • Whether a delay of over two months in recovering the alleged weapon of offence impairs its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and another vs Senior Superintendent of Police, N-52015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 149 · Federal Service Tribunal
  disciplinary proceedingsshow-cause noticeservice appealmisconductpenalty impositionnatural justicemotorway police
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the imposition of a penalty of withholding increments for three years upon the appellant, a Motorway Police official, following a fatal traffic accident in his patrolling area. The appellant was charged with failing to educate commuters on traffic discipline. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary authority could impose a lesser penalty (stoppage of increments) than the one proposed in the Show-Cause Notice (dismissal from service), and whether the appellant could be held liable for the negligent driving of third parties. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the disciplinary authority erred by imposing a penalty not specified in the Show-Cause Notice, as the appellant had prepared his defense specifically against the threat of dismissal. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of negligence by the appellant, noting that the accident resulted from the actions of the drivers involved, not the patrolling officer. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the penalty was set aside. The judgment establishes that a disciplinary authority cannot impose a penalty different from or lesser than the one proposed in the Show-Cause Notice without providing the accused an opportunity to defend against that specific penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary authority impose a penalty that was not specified in the original Show-Cause Notice?
  • Is a police official responsible for a traffic accident caused by the negligent driving of third parties in their patrolling area?
  • Does the failure to specify the exact penalty in a Show-Cause Notice vitiate the disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadi Ali Shah vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-21Read full judgment →
• Khadeeja Hassan vs Public Service Commission through Secretary and 72015 PLJ AJ&K 65 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
• Kh. Shahbaz Ahmad vs C.I.R., R.T.O., Gujranwala2015 PTD (Trib.) 1465 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-08-20Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Naheem, Deputy Commissioner,Bhimber presently2015 P.S.C. (Crl.) 269 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• KESC and Others vs N.I.R.C. and OTHERSs2015 NLR Labour 114 · Sindh High Court
  18th Constitutional Amendmentlegislative competencetrans-provincial establishmentsfundamental rightsindustrial relationsfederal legislative listprovincial autonomypith and substance doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a constitutional challenge to the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, brought by employers and provincial authorities who argued that, following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment and the abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List, the Federal Parliament lacked the legislative competence to regulate trade unions and industrial disputes. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was ultra vires the Constitution for encroaching on provincial legislative domains. The Court held that the Act is intra vires. It established that while provincial legislatures are territorially constrained by Article 141, the Federal Parliament retains authority under Entry 58 of the Federal Legislative List to legislate on matters relating to the Federation. The Court reasoned that federal legislation is necessary to protect the Fundamental Right to form associations under Article 17 for trans-provincial establishments, as provincial laws cannot operate beyond their boundaries. The judgment affirmed the doctrine of pith and substance, emphasizing that federal laws facilitating the exercise of Fundamental Rights in trans-provincial contexts are valid, and clarified that the National Industrial Relations Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the Federal Parliament have the legislative competence to regulate trade unions and industrial disputes for trans-provincial establishments?
  • What is the effect of the non-obstinate clause in Section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 regarding the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Can provincial legislation regulate industrial activities that extend beyond the territorial boundaries of a province?
  Read full judgment →
• KESC and others vs N.I.R.C. and others2015 NLR Labour 114, 2015 PLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-04
  Industrial Relations Act 2012trans-provincial establishmentsEighteenth Constitutional Amendmentlegislative competencetrade unionsfundamental rightsEntry 58 Federal Legislative ListNIRC jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before a Larger Bench of the Sindh High Court involved connected constitutional petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA 2012). Following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the Concurrent Legislative List, the core question was whether Parliament possessed the legislative competence to enact IRA 2012 regulating trade unions and industrial disputes in trans-provincial establishments operating across multiple provinces or within the Islamabad Capital Territory. Employers argued the subject devolved exclusively to provincial legislatures under Article 142(c), whereas workmen supported the law's validity. The High Court held that IRA 2012 is intra vires the Constitution. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance and reading Entry No. 58 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List in conjunction with Article 17 (Fundamental Right to form associations) and Article 141, the Court ruled that provincial laws cannot operate beyond provincial territorial limits. Therefore, a Federal law is necessary to facilitate and regulate trans-provincial trade unions. Consequently, NIRC holds exclusive jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 constitutional and within Parliament's legislative competence post-Eighteenth Amendment?
  • Can a provincial legislature enact laws regulating trade unions and industrial disputes operating across trans-provincial boundaries under Article 141 of the Constitution?
  • Does Parliament have authority under Entry No. 58 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List to legislate on matters that relate to the Federation and facilitate Fundamental Rights across provincial borders?
  • Which legal forum possesses exclusive jurisdiction to resolve industrial disputes arising in trans-provincial establishments operating in more than one province?
  Read full judgment →
• Kausar Firdous and otherss vs Mian M. Zia2015 CLC 606 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-17
  ejectment petitionrent controllerimpleadmentnecessary partysummary jurisdictionlandlord and tenantthird party interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by which the appellants sought to be impleaded as parties in an ongoing ejectment petition between a landlord and a tenant. The appellants claimed to be co-owners of the demised premises and alleged that the landlord's title was defective due to pending litigation regarding the property's alienation. The core legal questions were whether the appellants, as third parties, had the right to appeal the Rent Controller's order and whether they were necessary or proper parties to the ejectment proceedings. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the Rent Controller exercises limited jurisdiction restricted to disputes between landlords and tenants, and third parties cannot appeal such orders. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court held that allowing third-party impleadment would improperly convert a summary ejectment proceeding into a complex title dispute. The principle laid down is that the Rent Controller's jurisdiction is exclusive to the landlord-tenant relationship, and third parties claiming title cannot be impleaded in summary eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a third party claiming ownership be impleaded as a necessary party in summary ejectment proceedings between a landlord and tenant?
  • Is an order of a Rent Controller dismissing an application for impleadment by a third party appealable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller extend to adjudicating complex questions of title involving third parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif vs The State and anotherK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 2013-07-24
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverycharasstatutory delaycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being apprehended based on secret information, leading to the alleged recovery of 1280-grams of charas from his personal search, with 10-grams separated for chemical analysis. The Lahore High Court considered the duration of the petitioner's incarceration since March 30, 2013, and the facts of the case touching the borderlines of further inquiry. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds with a surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle established is that prolonged incarceration coupled with the nature of the evidentiary threshold touching further inquiry warrants the concession of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion justifies the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the case touches the borderline of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Riaz, Inspector Police, Rawalpindi vs The State and 8 others2015 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-13
  anti-terrorism courtspeedy trialday-to-day trialcriminal revisionprecedence of trialexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under sections 435/439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court that declined an application to expedite the trial of a high-profile case registered under sections 302, 324, 435, 436, 120-B, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sections 7, 21(i), and 21(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court was bound to conduct day-to-day proceedings and prioritize the trial of heinous offences in accordance with the statutory mandates of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Lahore High Court held that trials before Anti-Terrorism Courts must be conducted on a day-to-day basis and take precedence over other cases to ensure speedy justice. The court accepted the petition, setting aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether trials before an Anti-Terrorism Court have precedence over trials pending in other courts?
  • Does section 19(7) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 mandate day-to-day proceedings for cases triable under the Act?
  • Can the High Court direct an Anti-Terrorism Court to expedite trial proceedings and conclude them within a specified timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Razzaq vs Addl. District & Sesseions Judge, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-12Read full judgment →
• Kashif Raza vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting statementsabductioncriminal intimidationwrongful confinementSection 164 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail before arrest application arises from an FIR registered under sections 365-B, 506/2, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting statements of the complainant recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court observed that the complainant had provided two contradictory statements under section 164: one stating she was not abducted and requesting to be sent to Darul Aman, and a subsequent statement implicating the applicant. The court held that because it could not be determined at the pre-trial stage which statement was voluntary and which was coerced, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Emphasizing that liberty should not be curtailed without reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offense, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, noting that the applicant's case presented reasonable doubt and that co-accused had already been granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two contradictory statements of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a case for further inquiry?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when there is reasonable doubt regarding the applicant's involvement in a non-bailable offense?
  • Is the principle of consistency in bail matters applicable when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Mustafa vs Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, GovernmentK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 57 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kashif Mustafa vs Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 980 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-05
  FPSCfunctus officioappointment withdrawalcivil servicedomicile certificateadministrative errorservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the withdrawal of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Director Investigation (BS-17) in the Federal Investigation Agency. The petitioner, recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and appointed by the Ministry of Interior, had his appointment withdrawn after the FPSC alleged he concealed his Punjab domicile while being appointed against an Azad Jammu and Kashmir seat. The core legal questions were whether the FPSC could withdraw its recommendation after it had been acted upon and whether the petitioner had concealed material information. The Court held that the FPSC becomes functus officio once its recommendation is acted upon and the candidate is appointed; it lacks the authority to unilaterally withdraw recommendations or issue show-cause notices to appointed candidates. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of concealment, noting the petitioner had submitted all relevant documentation, and the error in allocation was attributable solely to the FPSC. The Court set aside the withdrawal letter, directing the Ministry to adjust the petitioner against a Punjab seat, holding that a candidate should not be penalized for an administrative error by the recommending body.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission withdraw its recommendation for appointment after the recommendation has been acted upon and the candidate has joined service?
  • Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the legal authority to issue a show-cause notice to a candidate after they have been appointed to a post?
  • Is a candidate liable for the concealment of facts if they submitted all relevant documents to the Federal Public Service Commission, but the Commission erroneously processed the application?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-03
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtmurderconflicting medical and ocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of respondents by the Trial Court in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondents was perverse, arbitrary, or based on the misreading or non-reading of evidence, warranting interference by the appellate court. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the ocular account conflicted with the medical evidence and no fatal injuries were attributed to the respondents. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquitted person enjoys a double presumption of innocence, which can only be dislodged if the trial court's order is shown to be arbitrary or suffering from a misreading of evidence. Finding no such infirmity and noting that the benefit of doubt was rightly extended, the court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • What is the legal effect of a double presumption of innocence enjoyed by an acquitted person in an appeal against acquittal?
  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal against acquittal when the trial court's judgment is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Hussain vs Ashiq Hussain and othersK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-03
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtmisreading of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, in a case involving charges under Sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal judgment was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, or if it was arbitrary and perverse, warranting appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that the ocular account was inconsistent with medical evidence, and no fatal injuries were attributed to the respondents. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court has disregarded material evidence or committed a legal error. Finding no such infirmity in the trial court's judgment, the High Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that any benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an accused person enjoy a double presumption of innocence after being acquitted by a trial court?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad Khushk vs United Bank Ltd2015 SHC 37 · Sindh High Court · 2010-01-22Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux vs The State2015 PLD Sindh 113 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-22
  compromisecompoundable offenceQisas and Diyatcompensationwaiver of compensationmurder convictionreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties filed a compromise application stating they had resolved their disputes. The core legal questions involved the effect of a valid compromise on a compoundable criminal charge and whether legal heirs could waive the compensation awarded under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that while the offence is compoundable and the legal heirs can competently waive their right of Qisas and Diyat leading to acquittal from the substantive charge, they cannot waive the compensation awarded under section 544-A, which is mandatory and independent of the offence. The court established that while compensation cannot be waived or written off upon a compromise, it can be reduced based on the circumstances of the case such as the convict's poverty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether legal heirs competent to compound an offence can also waive the compensation awarded under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the amount of compensation awarded under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be reduced in the event of a compromise between the parties?
  • Does a compromise between the parties resulting in acquittal nullify the mandatory payment of compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamdad vs Manzoor Ahmad and 2 others2015 CLC 157 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-26
  specific performanceoral agreement to sellburden of proofmisreading of evidencecivil revisionevidentiary contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for specific performance based on an alleged oral agreement to sell property. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff successfully proved the existence of the oral agreement, the payment of consideration, and the delivery of possession, given the evidentiary contradictions. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts erred in decreeing the suit, as the plaintiff failed to provide consistent, credible evidence to substantiate the oral transaction. The Court observed that the plaintiff did not disclose the names of witnesses in the plaint, and the testimonies of the produced witnesses were contradictory regarding the presence of individuals during the alleged bargain. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove the payment of consideration or the transfer of possession as claimed. The ratio established is that an oral agreement to sell must be proved through credible, unimpeachable evidence, and a suit cannot be decreed based on contradictory evidence, failure to plead material details, or surmises and conjectures. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement be decreed when the plaintiff fails to plead the names of witnesses and the time for completion of the agreement?
  • Does the failure to prove the payment of sale consideration and the delivery of possession invalidate a claim for specific performance of an oral agreement?
  • Is a judgment based on contradictory witness testimony and surmises regarding an oral agreement sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain etc vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2015 LHC 8240 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Company through Authorized Officer vs Karachi2015 YLR 967 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-14Read full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Messrs Quality Builders Ltd.2016 NLR Civil 338, 2016 PLJ Sc 404, 2016 P.S.C. 657, 2015-SCP-121, PLD 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-02
  arbitration awardsole arbitratorappointment of arbitratorjurisdiction of arbitratorunilateral appointmentrule of the courtwaiver and acquiescence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether an arbitration award made by a sole arbitrator was issued with lawful jurisdiction and thus correctly made a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a construction contract containing an arbitration clause that was silent on the number of arbitrators and the appointment mechanism, thereby attracting Section 3 and Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940, implying a reference to a single arbitrator by mutual consent. The respondent unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, without fulfilling the statutory preconditions, instead of seeking appointment through the court under Section 8 or Section 20. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Section 9 was inapplicable and that the unilateral appointment rendered the arbitrator inherently without jurisdiction, making the resulting award a nullity. The Court further ruled that an inherent defect in jurisdiction is incurable by waiver or participation, and the court is duty-bound to examine the legality of an award sua sponte before making it a rule of the court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and a retired judge was appointed as a new sole arbitrator by consent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 applies when the arbitration agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators and the manner of their appointment?
  • Does a party have the power to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 where the arbitration agreement does not provide for a reference to two arbitrators?
  • Can an objection regarding the inherent lack of jurisdiction of an arbitrator be waived through the conduct or participation of a party?
  • Is a court duty-bound to independently examine the legality and jurisdictional validity of an arbitration award before making it a rule of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Kandawalla Trust & another vs notSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Kamran vs Haji Muhammad Zahir Khan and another2015 P Cr. L J 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-11
  post-arrest bailabscondencecommon objectconstructive liabilityfurther inquirytrial commencedmedical evidenceocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Kamran seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 522 dated 12-11-2013 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Daudzai, Peshawar. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry due to multiple accused and variance in medical evidence, the legal effect of unexplained noticeable abscondence, and whether bail should be granted when the trial has already commenced upon submission of the challan. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is prima facie connected with a capital offense supported by direct ocular testimony, medical evidence, and a six-month unexplained abscondence. The court ruled that unexplained abscondence disentitles an accused to bail, that the case does not warrant further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that bail applications should not be decided on merits once the trial has commenced. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused with an unexplained noticeable abscondence is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely because multiple accused are charged for causing injuries?
  • Should a bail application be decided on merits once the challan has been submitted and the trial has commenced?
  • Are assailants vicariously and constructively liable when multiple persons actively participate in thrashing a victim in prosecution of a common object?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Niaz Ahmed vs The State & anotherSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan vs The State2015 YLR 1860 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ayub Chughtai vs The Superintendent Customs, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 345 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-01Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ayub Chughtai vs The Superintendent Customs etc111 TAX 179 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-01Read full judgment →
• Kamran and Farhan Ahmad Hashmi vs The StateSindh High Court
  murderanti-terrorismdeath referenceidentification paradesolitary eyewitnessballistic expert reportcommon intentioncapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal and a death reference arising from the conviction and capital sentence awarded to two appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court No. 1, Karachi, under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the fatal firearm attack on a police constable. The core legal questions involved whether a capital conviction can legally rest upon the testimony of a solitary, independent eyewitness corroborated by medical evidence, and whether procedural delays or irregularities in holding test identification parades vitiate such proceedings. The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, answering the death reference in the affirmative. It held that the ocular testimony was natural, reliable, and corroborated by hospital records, ballistic evidence, and medical findings. The Court reiterated that evidence must be weighed, not counted, affirming that the uncorroborated plurality of witnesses is unnecessary where a single witness inspires confidence, and that identification parades serve merely corroborative evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction carrying capital punishment be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
  • Does a delay in holding a test identification parade vitiate the prosecution's case if the witness subsequently identifies the accused in court?
  • Is holding a test identification parade mandatory or merely corroborative in criminal proceedings?
  • Can an uncorroborated plea that an independent eyewitness is a police tout be sufficient to discard their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran alias Bobi vs The State etc.2013 LHC 787 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11
  criminal appealanti-terrorismabscondencebenefit of doubtacquittalco-accusedreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the main co-accused facing identical allegations had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the prosecution relied heavily on delayed reporting, improved statements, and absconsion. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that absconsion alone cannot take the place of substantive proof in the absence of confidence-inspiring evidence, and that an accused cannot be convicted on the same evidence when the main accused has already been acquitted. The key principle laid down is that mere absconsion is not conclusive proof of guilt and cannot substitute for solid, reliable evidence, and where the primary evidence against co-accused has been disbelieved and resulted in acquittal, a co-accused assigned a lesser role cannot be sustained on that weak testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of absconsion in the absence of confidence-inspiring substantive evidence?
  • Whether an appellant can be maintained on conviction when the primary co-accused facing the same allegations has been acquitted by the Supreme Court?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create doubt in the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamar Sajjad alias Kamar Shahazad Tanveer Ahmad Hakim Khan vs The State The State Kamar Sajjad alias Qaiser Shahzad and 2 others2015 LHC 6900 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-22
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessinterested witnessmurder convictioninquest reportforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences imposed under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Asjad Mahmood. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the prosecution's ocular evidence, the impact of significant time discrepancies between the occurrence and the FIR, and the evidentiary value of uncorroborated recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court identified critical flaws: the eyewitnesses were deemed "chance witnesses" whose presence was not recorded in the inquest report; the timing of the death contradicted the FIR; and the claim of identifying assailants via motorcycle headlight was deemed implausible. Furthermore, the lack of forensic reports for the recovered weapons and the failure to prove the introduced motive undermined the prosecution's case. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended when evidence is shaky and inconsistent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of eyewitness names in an inquest report cast doubt on their presence at the scene of the crime?
  • Is testimony from interested and chance witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a significant, unexplained discrepancy between the time of death and the time of the FIR registration?
  • Does the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding recovered weapons render the recovery evidence inconsequential?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamango College Bus Accident vs Not2015 MLD 1206 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2014-11-08Read full judgment →
• Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate2015 LHC 8547 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-23Read full judgment →
• Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. through General Manager vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 othersPTCL 2015 CL.204, 2015'PTD 221 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan etc.111 TAX 295 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
• Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 othersPTCL 2015 CL.204 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Mustafa vs Registrar, Lahore High Court2015 PLC (C.S.) 389 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2014-10-24
  civil judgetermination of serviceprobation periodadverse remarksspecial reportsservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Civil Judge, challenged her termination from service via a notification issued by the Registrar of the Lahore High Court. Her services were terminated during her four-year probation period following adverse ACRs, below-average performance, and special reports from District and Sessions Judges regarding her compromised credibility and reputation. The core legal question was whether a probationer civil judge's services could be terminated during the probation period without a regular inquiry or notice. The Tribunal held that since the appellant was still on probation and had not attained confirmed status, her services could be validly terminated simpliciter under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the terms of her appointment, without requiring a regular inquiry or notice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of a civil judge on probation can be terminated without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Does Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 permit termination of a probationer without notice?
  • Whether termination during the probation period simpliciter without stigma requires a formal show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Bibi vs Secretary Education and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 563 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-11
  constitutional petitionservice lawappointment under rule 17-Amarried daughterdeceased civil servantbenevolent provisiondepartmental delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for her appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 following the demise of her father during service. The core legal question was whether a married daughter of a deceased civil servant is entitled to appointment under Rule 17-A notwithstanding departmental clarifications or objections regarding marital status. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 17-A applies to any unemployed child irrespective of marital status, and that departmental authorities cannot restrict the clear wording of a statute through administrative notifications or misinterpretations. The court laid down the principle that benevolent provisions providing relief to bereaved families of civil servants must be interpreted broadly, and that denying benefits to married daughters violates the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a married daughter of a civil servant who dies during service is entitled to appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Does a departmental notification restricting the benefit of Rule 17-A to unmarried children override the explicit language of the rule?
  • Whether discrimination on the basis of sex in granting relief to the bereaved family of a civil servant violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can departmental authorities refuse a job under Rule 17-A on the ground that the applicant is a married daughter?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Bibi etc. vs Muhammad Irfan etc.2015 LHC 993 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-26Read full judgment →
• Kallo Pehlwaan vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore and 2 others2015 YLR 1892 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-15Read full judgment →
• (1) Kali Khan (2) Faiz Muhammad & others vs (1) Bodlo & others (2)Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 767, 2015 LHC 5463 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21
  murdergrave and sudden provocationprivate complaintacquittalinculpatory statementSection 342 CrPCre-appraisal of evidenceaccomplice testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had rejected the prosecution's ocular account as concocted but convicted the appellants based on their admission of killing the deceased, citing grave and sudden provocation. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted solely on their inculpatory statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution’s evidence has been rejected in its entirety. The High Court, upon re-appraisal of the evidence, found the prosecution's version of events to be fabricated and unsustainable. Consequently, the Court held that where the prosecution fails to establish its case and the court rejects the prosecution's version in its entirety, the accused must be acquitted, regardless of any admission of killing made by the accused. The inculpatory part of an accused's statement cannot be utilized to uphold a conviction if the prosecution case itself is disbelieved. Accordingly, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted based solely on their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's case has been rejected in its entirety?
  • Is the testimony of an accomplice sufficient to convict a co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does the rejection of the prosecution's ocular account necessitate the acquittal of the accused even if they admitted to the killing?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah and another Shoukat Ali vs The State and another Kaleem2015 LHC 5463 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21
  criminal appealprivate complaintmurderrejection of prosecution versioninculpatory statementgrave and sudden provocationaccomplice evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a private complaint arising from a murder incident where the deceased was found dead inside the appellant's house under allegations of illicit relations. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted solely on an inculpatory statement or plea when the entire prosecution ocular account and version have been disbelieved and rejected by the courts. The Lahore High Court held that if the prosecution fails to prove its case and the ocular account is disbelieved, the accused must be acquitted, and the inculpatory part of an accused's statement cannot be utilized for recording a conviction. The court laid down the principle that an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot form the basis of a conviction when the prosecution case has fallen flat, and an accomplice's statement requires independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of an inculpatory statement or plea when the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Is the statement of a co-accused sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration from an independent source?
  • What is the legal effect on a criminal trial when the entire prosecution story presented through a private complaint and police report is found to be concocted and untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaki vs Aqleemun and 3 others2015 CLC 290 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-28
  civil revisiondeclaratory suitrevenue recordpresumption of truthadditional evidencespecial oathverbal sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's declaratory suit regarding ownership and possession of the suit land, along with a prayer for correction of the revenue record. The core legal questions involved whether the failure of the appellate court to formally decide pending miscellaneous applications for additional evidence and special oath vitiated its judgment, and whether a verbal sale lacking witnesses and specific dates could rebut the presumption of truth attached to longstanding revenue records. The Peshawar High Court held that although an appellate court is duty-bound to decide miscellaneous applications, the omission to do so does not ipso facto nullify the judgment unless it prejudices the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Court held that a verbal transaction without corroborating witnesses or dates cannot displace the strong presumption of truth attached to settlement revenue records showing the respondent as the recorded owner. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an appellate court to decide a miscellaneous application prior to the disposal of an appeal automatically nullify the judgment?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a verbal sale lacking supporting witnesses and specific dates against a longstanding revenue record?
  • Whether presumption of truth attached to the revenue record, especially one prepared in settlement, can be rebutted without strong evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kafeel Ahmed vs Superintendent of Police, District Hattian Bala and 62015 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 484 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Kadir BUXand another vs The State2015 YLR 419 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-28
  murderattempted murderocular testimonymedical evidenceprevious enmitycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions for the murder of Manzoor Ahmed and the attempted murder of complainant Bashir Ahmed, arising from an incident where the victims were waylaid and fired upon. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's claims of false implication due to previous enmity and alleged contradictions in the ocular testimony. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's case was robust. The court found the ocular testimony of the injured complainant and eyewitnesses to be consistent, unblemished, and confidence-inspiring. The court further held that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, noting that lay witnesses describing an "epigastric" wound as a "chest" injury did not constitute a material contradiction. The court affirmed that previous enmity is a double-edged sword, providing motive for the crime rather than necessarily implying false accusation. The judgment reinforces the principle that where ocular testimony is consistent and supported by medical findings, it remains reliable despite the existence of prior animosity between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between a lay witness's description of a wound and the medical examiner's technical terminology constitute a material contradiction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony alone when the defense alleges false implication due to previous enmity?
  • Is the testimony of an injured complainant entitled to greater weight in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Kacho Asghar vs The State2015 MLD 1217 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-04Read full judgment →
• Junaid vs Area Manager TCS etc.District Consumer Court · 2015-01-30Read full judgment →
• Junaid Jamshed vs University of Health Sicences and others2015 CLC 65 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-03Read full judgment →
• Juman Solangi vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceconfession to policebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last seen' evidence, the admissibility of police confessions, and the requirement of corroboration when dealing with related and interested witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances conclusively or complete the chain of evidence necessary for a conviction based solely on circumstantial and last-seen evidence, and that confessional statements made to police officers are inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The court laid down the principle that last-seen evidence, being a weak piece of evidence, requires strong, independent corroboration, and that the chain of circumstances in a circumstantial evidence case must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer during investigation admissible in evidence against an accused?
  • What are the mandatory conditions precedent for recording a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Whether last-seen evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence warrant the setting aside of a conviction for another accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Juman and Amir Hassan vs StateSindh High Court · -
  suspension of sentencejail appealstatutory delaypost-arrest baillife imprisonmentcriminal procedure amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, convicting the appellants under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life as Tazir. The appellants filed an application under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of their sentence on the ground that their appeal had been pending for over five years and they had already served a substantial portion of their imprisonment, exceeding half of their sentence, thereby qualifying for relief under the newly added subsection (1A) of Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court examined the record, noted that the delay in the disposal of the appeal could not be solely attributed to the appellants, and observed that life convicts whose appeals are not decided within two years are entitled to the benefit of the statutory amendment. Consequently, the court allowed the application, suspended the sentence, and granted bail to the appellants subject to furnishing required sureties. The key principle laid down is that where an appeal of a life convict remains undecided beyond the statutory period without deliberate delay attributable to the accused, the sentence is liable to be suspended under Section 426(1A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convicted person is entitled to suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their appeal is not decided within two years?
  • Does the delay in the adjudication of a criminal appeal solely determine the right to bail under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or must the conduct of the appellant be examined?
  • Can the period of sentence already served by a life convict who has undergone more than half of their imprisonment form a ground for suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs Gul Bibi and others2015 MLD 1627 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-06
  specific performanceframing of issuesremand of casetrial court dutyunregistered agreementcivil procedurepleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court judgment decreeing a suit for specific performance, possession, and recovery of money. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to frame necessary issues regarding preliminary legal objections, including the maintainability of the suit under the Specific Relief Act, the requirement for registration of the agreement under the Registration Act, and the factual dispute regarding a business partnership and monetary claim. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to frame issues addressing these critical legal and factual controversies, despite the appellant raising them in the written statement. The Court held that while parties should assist in framing issues, the trial court has an independent statutory duty to frame all necessary issues arising from the pleadings to determine the real controversy. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to frame proper issues of fact and law, allow parties to lead further evidence, and decide the suit afresh on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to frame necessary issues on legal and factual controversies warrant the setting aside of a judgment and remand of the case?
  • Is a trial court absolved of its duty to frame necessary issues if the parties fail to point them out?
  • Can a court grant a decree for a monetary claim when the underlying factual controversy regarding the debt has not been put into issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Judicial-Ill)Malik Muhammad Pervaiz vs The State2015 YLR 1075 · Board of Revenue · 2014-06-23Read full judgment →
• Judicial-III)Khushi Muhammad and others vs The State and others2015 YLR 226 · Board of Revenue · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
• Judicial-III) Tanvir Akhtar and another vs Sahab Bibi and others2015 CLC 232 · Board of Revenue · 2014-09-24
  Lambardar appointmentRevenue lawFemale LambardarHereditary claimRevision petitionLand Revenue RulesAbsentee candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from the appointment of a Lambardar for Chak No.16/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari. The District Collector had appointed a female respondent, Sahab Bibi, citing her hereditary claim and land ownership, which was upheld by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that the lower courts failed to properly evaluate the candidates' eligibility and that the appointment of a female was contrary to established legal principles. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a female Lambardar was justified in the presence of other eligible male candidates and whether the lower courts exercised independent judicial discretion. The Board of Revenue held that the lower courts failed to apply an independent mind and misread the record regarding the land ownership of the petitioner, Tanvir Akhtar. Furthermore, the Board reiterated the principle that a female is not ordinarily eligible for the office of Lambardar unless she is the sole owner of the estate or special circumstances exist. Consequently, the Board set aside the lower courts' orders and appointed Tanvir Akhtar as the Lambardar.

  Questions settled

  • Is a female ordinarily eligible for appointment to the office of a Lambardar?
  • Does the appointment of a Lambardar require the candidate to be a resident of the village for which the appointment is made?
  • Can a revisional authority set aside the appointment of a Lambardar if the lower courts failed to apply an independent judicial mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Judicial-III Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State and others2015 MLD 102 · Board of Revenue · 2014-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khadim Ali Shah and anothers vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 504 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-21
  post-arrest bailrapeminor victimcompromisenon-compoundable offencemoral turpitudeconsent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail application filed by the accused petitioners, Khadim Ali Shah and Farmanullah alias Parveen, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 219 dated 28.02.2015 registered under Sections 376, 363, 337-J, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City, Bannu, for allegedly committing rape on a minor girl aged 9/10 years. The core legal questions involve whether bail can be granted based on a compromise between the complainant father and the accused in a non-compoundable heinous offence, and whether the victim's age precludes the defense of consent. The Court held that offences of moral turpitude such as rape committed against minors are non-compoundable, and a compromise by the complainant cannot bind the State or override the heinous nature of the crime. The Court further held that a minor aged 9/10 years cannot be deemed a consenting party under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted in a non-compoundable heinous offence solely on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused?
  • Whether the defense of consent is available when the victim of alleged rape is under sixteen years of age under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the pendency of forensic or DNA reports entitle an accused to the concession of bail in a heinous crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Jotun Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited for Deceptive Marketing Practices_ In the matter of vs Not2015 CLD 1638 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2015-03-17Read full judgment →
• Joint Registrar of Companies, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Omer Iqbal Solvent (Pvt.) Ltd. etc2015 LHC 7992 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Jiwan Khan (deceased) through his legal representatives vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalnagar District etc2015 LHC 2969 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06
  civil revisionagreement to sellconsensus ad idemgeneral power of attorneyconcurrent findingsfraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from judgments of the lower courts dismissing a suit for declaration and possession regarding land originally allotted under the Grow More Food Scheme. The predecessor of the petitioners had appointed a general attorney to manage the confiscated land, who subsequently executed an agreement to sell and transferred the property to his own son. The core legal question concerns the validity of an agreement to sell that is not signed by the vendee and the legality of an attorney transferring property to a close relative without special permission. The Lahore High Court held that an agreement to sell immovable property is a bilateral contract requiring signatures from both parties to establish consensus ad idem, and that an attorney cannot transfer the principal's property to their close relative without special permission. The court laid down that an unsigned agreement to sell lacks legal validity and that concurrent findings of lower courts vitiated by serious legal errors and misreading of evidence are open to interference in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to sell immovable property valid if it is not signed by the vendee?
  • Can a general attorney transfer the principal's property to their own son without special permission?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts can be interfered with in civil revision when suffering from material irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Khan vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 106 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryCNSAfurther inquirypolice mala fidefirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Jehangir, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of five kilograms of narcotics from his possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and bail, given allegations of police mala fide, personal vendetta, and multiple simultaneous FIRs at the same location. The Peshawar High Court held that the existence of parallel FIRs under similar circumstances raised questions of mala fide, and since the petitioner was a first offender and the likely sentence could be lesser than the maximum, the case warranted further inquiry. The court admitted the petitioner to bail, laying down the principle that while deciding bail in narcotics cases, the court may consider the punishment likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances rather than solely focusing on the maximum statutory penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when there are allegations of police mala fide and multiple simultaneous FIRs?
  • Should the court keep the maximum punishment or the likely lesser sentence in mind when considering bail in narcotics cases?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics disentitle an accused to bail if the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir R. Kakalia through L.Rs. vs VIIth Additional District2015 CLC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2013-06-20Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Mehmood Cheema vs Governmemt of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior through Secretary and 2 others2015 PLD Lahore 301 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-20
  Exit Control Listfundamental right to travelloan defaultfinancial institutions recoverybanking disputeconstitutional petitiondue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Interior, rejecting a review petition for the deletion of the petitioners' names from the Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioners, who were directors of a private company, had their names placed on the ECL at the behest of a commercial bank due to an alleged default on financial facilities, notwithstanding the pendency of recovery suits before the banking court where liability had not yet been adjudicated. The core legal questions revolved around whether a commercial bank's unadjudicated claim constitutes a valid ground to abridge the fundamental right to travel, whether the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance overrides constitutional principles, and the adequacy of the statutory review remedy. The Lahore High Court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and a person cannot be termed a defaulter or subjected to ECL placement based merely on an unadjudicated claim by a commercial bank without due process and a judicial determination. The court laid down that the ECL cannot be used as a coercive tool to recover alleged bank dues prior to a formal adjudication of liability by a court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unadjudicated claim of a commercial bank against a customer constitutes a valid ground for placing the customer's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Can a commercial bank or the State Bank of Pakistan declare a customer to be a loan defaulter in the absence of a judicial determination by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does placement of a person's name on the Exit Control List for alleged debt default without prior notice violate the right to a fair trial and freedom of movement under the Constitution?
  • Is the statutory remedy of review under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance an adequate alternate remedy barring the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction when fundamental rights are infringed?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehan Roz vs Auditor General of Pakistan & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-26Read full judgment →
• Jeeyand-Ur-Rehman vs Secretary AGRlCULTURE and Cooperative2015 PLC (C.S.) 973 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 2013-12-13
  transfer and postingservice tribunalacting chargevested rightadministrative grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal seeking to set aside a notification whereby Respondent No. 2 was transferred and posted as Secretary Market Committee Quetta on an acting charge basis. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could interfere with routine transfer and posting orders issued by the competent authority on administrative grounds. The Tribunal held that transfer is an incident of service, and a civil servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. The court should not interfere with transfer and administrative orders made in the public interest unless they violate mandatory statutory rules or are vitiated by mala fide. The Tribunal laid down the principle that courts and tribunals must avoid micro-managing day-to-day administrative postings to prevent administrative chaos, and that compliance with transfer orders is mandatory unless stayed or modified by competent authority. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a legal or vested right to remain posted at a particular place?
  • Can the Service Tribunal interfere with transfer and posting orders issued on administrative grounds in the public interest?
  • What is the remedy available to a government servant facing genuine difficulty with a transfer order?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawwad Jan vs The State2015 MLD 454 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-12
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencycommon intentionattempt to commit murderfurther inquiryfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises out of F.I.R. No. 121 of 2014 registered under sections 147, 148, 149, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Eidgah, Karachi, concerning an incident of firing resulting in injuries to multiple persons. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused facing similar general allegations had already been granted bail by the courts. The Sindh High Court held that since a similar role of a general nature was assigned to all accused in the F.I.R. without specific attribution of injuries, and co-accused in the same position had been enlarged on bail, the case of the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. The court laid down the principle that where co-accused assigned similar general roles are granted bail, an accused similarly situated is equally entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused assigned similar general roles have already been granted bail?
  • Does a general allegation of firing by multiple accused without specific attribution of individual injuries make out a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Hussain vs Islah High School, Chiniot2015 MLD 976 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-08Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ghaffar through Father vs The State through Director and another2015 P Cr. L J 1772 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-15
  post-arrest bailprima facie evidencefurther inquirycustoms smugglingcriminal investigationbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a constitutional petition challenging the registration of an FIR and the authority of the respondent agency, but was converted into a bail application by consent of the parties. The petitioner, who was not named in the initial FIR, sought post-arrest bail regarding his alleged involvement in the illegal importation of alcoholic liquor under the guise of declared goods. The core legal question was whether sufficient prima facie evidence existed to connect the petitioner to the offense, thereby precluding the grant of bail. The Court held that while the petitioner's name was absent from the FIR, the prosecution produced substantial incriminating material, including mobile data records, hotel documents, bank statements, and witness statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, establishing a prima facie nexus. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, reiterating the principle that bail cannot be granted on hypothetical grounds or merely because a question exists, as the accused must demonstrate a lack of prima facie evidence connecting them to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can bail be granted on hypothetical grounds or merely because a question exists in the case?
  • What is the threshold for establishing a prima facie nexus between an accused and an offense for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ali and others vs Superintendent, Jail and others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-19
  locus poenitentiaecivil service appointmentwrit jurisdictionarbitrary cancellationdue processservice lawnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenge the cancellation of appointment orders for 796 Jail Warders (BPS-5) by the provincial government. The petitioners were appointed following a transparent selection process involving written examinations, physical tests, and interviews, and had already assumed their duties. The government sought to cancel these appointments, citing a policy shift toward recruitment via the National Testing System (NTS) and the desire of the competent authority. The core legal question was whether such appointments, having taken legal effect, could be rescinded arbitrarily. The Peshawar High Court held that the cancellation order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and of no legal effect. The Court affirmed the principle of locus poenitentiae, ruling that once an appointment order has been acted upon and legal rights have vested in the appointees, the government cannot unilaterally withdraw it. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public functionaries must act in accordance with the law and cannot arbitrarily terminate employees to satisfy political whims or retrospective policy changes, especially when the initial recruitment process was conducted lawfully and transparently.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government rescind an appointment order after the appointee has assumed charge of their duties?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the government from cancelling appointments that have already taken legal effect?
  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 despite the bar in Article 199(3) when the impugned action is malafide or without jurisdiction?
  • Is an appointment order valid if it is cancelled solely to accommodate a policy change regarding the recruitment testing agency after the selection process is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed vs The State2015 YLR 764 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-07Read full judgment →
• Javed Mujtaba. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 6596 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-15
  post-arrest bailDrugs Act 1976Government Analyst reportprohibitory clausepretrial detentionfood supplements
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, alleging the unauthorized manufacture of allopathic drugs. The core legal question was whether the seized products fell within the definition of 'drugs' under the Act, thereby justifying the criminal charges and the petitioner's continued detention. The Court held that the Government Analyst's report indicated the samples did not contain the alleged ingredients and were, in fact, homeopathic and nutrient products, which do not fall under the purview of the Drugs Act, 1976. Furthermore, the Court noted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that pretrial detention without incriminating material constitutes an unjust punishment. The key principle laid down is that where seized substances do not meet the statutory definition of drugs, criminal proceedings under the Drugs Act, 1976, are unsustainable, and bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the manufacture of homeopathic and nutrient products fall within the definition of drugs under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Does an offense punishable by a maximum of seven years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Drugs Act, 1976, be initiated when the Government Analyst's report confirms the seized substances are not drugs?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan and others vs Superintendent Customs Preventive, MCC, Islamabad and others2015 PTD (Trib.) 1183 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2014-06-30
  Customs confiscationchassis tamperingsmuggled vehiclebona fide purchaserforensic evidenceCustoms Act 1969
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the confiscation of a vehicle by Customs authorities on grounds of chassis tampering. The vehicle was seized after forensic examination revealed that the chassis number had been cut, welded, and refitted, indicating it was a smuggled vehicle. While the appellant initially contested the findings, leading to conflicting forensic reports, a third independent examination confirmed the original findings of tampering. The appellant further argued that he was a bona fide purchaser entitled to protection. The Customs Appellate Tribunal held that the evidence conclusively proved the vehicle was smuggled and its chassis tampered with. Regarding the plea of being a bona fide purchaser, the Tribunal ruled that such a defense is unavailable when dealing with smuggled or stolen property, as a thief or cheat cannot be granted preference over the rightful owner. Consequently, the Tribunal found no illegality in the lower authorities' orders, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the confiscation of the vehicle.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of being a bona fide purchaser protect a person in possession of a smuggled or stolen vehicle?
  • Does the discovery of a cut and welded chassis number justify the seizure and confiscation of a vehicle under the Customs Act 1969?
  • Is a thief or cheat entitled to legal preference over the real owner of a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Jaidi vs The State, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-31
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialdelay tacticsnon-cooperationcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the trial. The petitioner's previous bail application had been dismissed on merits. Upon reviewing the trial court's report, the High Court found that the petitioner himself was responsible for the delay, having sought approximately 23 adjournments and refused to be charge-sheeted in the absence of his counsel. The Court held that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, an accused cannot claim the benefit of delay when that delay is a direct result of their own non-cooperation and obstructionist tactics. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as the prosecution was not responsible for the trial's stagnation. The bail application was accordingly rejected, affirming that delay caused by the defense does not entitle an accused to relief on the grounds of statutory delay.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay is caused by the accused's own non-cooperation?
  • Can time taken by the defense to obstruct trial proceedings be counted towards statutory delay for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the refusal of an accused to be charge-sheeted in the absence of counsel constitute a valid ground for claiming delay in trial?
  Read full judgment →