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.

• Iffat Bibi vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 19 others2015 P.S.C. 544 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service seniorityservice tribunalcertified copyadmissibility of evidenceprocedural complianceQanoon-e-Shahadatpublic document
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter arose from an appeal filed by a Lecturer challenging a seniority list issued by the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal question was whether the appellant's appeal before the Service Tribunal was maintainable when the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a photocopy of the seniority list attested by the Advocate-General, rather than a certified true copy. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appeal was incompetent and liable to be dismissed. The Court reasoned that Rule 7(e) of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976, mandates that an appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the order of the competent authority. Furthermore, under Article 87(2) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a photostat copy of a public document is inadmissible unless certified by the officer having custody of the original. The principle laid down is that strict compliance with procedural requirements regarding the filing of certified copies is mandatory, and attestation by an unauthorized official does not satisfy statutory evidentiary requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Is a photocopy of a public document admissible in evidence if it is attested by the Advocate-General rather than the custodian of the record?
  • Does a memorandum of appeal filed before a Service Tribunal require a certified true copy of the impugned order to be maintainable?
  • What are the requirements for the admissibility of photostat copies of public documents under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Idrees Ahmed Aftab vs Government of Punjab and others2015 CLC 1295 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-06
  constitutional petitionlocus standisolar power plantletter of interestfeasibility studyraw sitecompetitive biddingtariff determination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the award of a project for carrying out a feasibility study and installing a 900 MW Solar Power Plant in the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park to a private company by the Punjab Energy Department and Punjab Power Development Board through a Project Commitment Agreement and Letter of Interest, without a competitive bidding process. The core legal questions involved whether the issuance of a Letter of Interest for a feasibility study on a raw site without competitive bidding violates the applicable energy policy, and whether the petition is premature given that the project is only at the feasibility stage and final licensing and tariff determination rest with NEPRA. The Lahore High Court held that the petition was premature and not maintainable, as raw site proposals under the Punjab Power Generation Policy do not require competitive bidding, and the petitioner lacked locus standi as an aggrieved person at this stage since no generation licence had been granted and ample opportunity for public hearing and participation exists before NEPRA. The court laid down the principle that challenges to preliminary steps like feasibility studies and letters of interest are premature before the regulatory and licensing authorities have exercised their statutory jurisdictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of a Letter of Interest for a feasibility study on a raw site requires mandatory competitive bidding under the Punjab Power Generation Policy?
  • Can a citizen maintain a constitutional petition as an aggrieved person against the preliminary issuance of a Letter of Interest for a power project feasibility study?
  • Whether a writ petition challenging a preliminary project feasibility study and Letter of Interest is premature prior to licensing and tariff determination by NEPRA?
  Read full judgment →
• Idara-E-Tahaffuz Amn-O-Ikhlaq-E-Aamaa through President and 42015 CLC 357 · Sindh High Court · 2012-12-14
  civil revisionlocus standimosque administrationconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidencetrust management
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondent trust's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the management, administration, and control of a mosque was decreed. The core legal questions involved the competency of the persons filing the civil appeal and the revision application, whether the application was maintainable without a certified copy of the decree, and whether the concurrent factual findings suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the civil appeal and revision application were filed by incompetent and non-existent entities, as the original trust had changed its name and most individual applicants were neither parties to the suit nor possessed standing. The Court further held that a certified copy of the decree is not mandatory under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, unlike an appeal under Order XLI Rule 1. On merits, the Court found no material misreading or non-reading of evidence by the courts below and declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that revision applications filed by dead or non-existent persons or by entities lacking locus standi are not maintainable, and concurrent factual findings based on proper appraisal of evidence cannot be disturbed under revisional jurisdiction absent jurisdictional error or glaring misreading.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil revision application filed by a non-existent or renamed trust and by persons not party to the original suit is maintainable?
  • Is it mandatory to annex a certified copy of the decree along with a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain vs Rpo etc.2015 LHC 4101 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain Shah vs Syed Waris Shah and another2015 PLJ Lahore 785, 2015 P Cr. L J 784 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-06
  second complaintdismissal of complaintdouble jeopardysummoning of accusedanti-terrorism courtjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders passed by a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge summoning him in a second private complaint and dismissing his criminal revision. The initial private complaint filed before an Anti-Terrorism Court was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, along with findings on merits. The Lahore High Court examined whether a second complaint is maintainable after the dismissal of a prior complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that an inquiry under Section 202 does not amount to a trial resulting in conviction or acquittal, and thus the principles of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not attracted. However, to prevent abuse of process, successive complaints are subject to a requirement of reasonableness and exceptional circumstances, such as where the previous order was manifestly absurd or passed without jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the second complaint was maintainable and the previous dismissal order suffered from patent illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second private complaint is maintainable after the dismissal of an earlier complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to an acquittal for the purpose of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What exceptional circumstances justify the filing and entertainment of successive private complaints for the same episode?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain Shah vs Syed Waris Shah & another2015 PLJ Lahore 785 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain Jaffri. vs Addl. Sessions Judge, etc.2015 LHC 6559 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Ahmed vs Reheem Dad and 8 others2015 NLR Revenue 42, 2015 CLC 546 · Board of Revenue · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Ahmed vs Raheem Dad and Others2015 NLR Revenue 42 · Board of Revenue · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Ahmad vs The State through Additional Advocate-General, Khyber2015 P Cr. L J 1299 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-27
  elopementjudicial confessionretracted confessionchild abandonmentstatutory interpretationcriminal appealpenal code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of Ibrar Ahmad and Mst. Sheema for offences under sections 496-A and 328 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, respectively, arising from an alleged elopement. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charges despite investigative lapses, whether a retracted judicial confession could sustain a conviction, and whether the abandonment of children under section 328, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was established. The Court held that while the investigation was flawed, the judicial confession of Ibrar Ahmad was voluntary and sufficient to maintain his conviction under section 496-A, though his sentence was reduced due to his age and lack of criminal record. Regarding Mst. Sheema, the Court held that her departure did not constitute 'abandonment' under section 328, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the children remained in the care of their grandmother and were not in danger. The key principle laid down is that penal statutes must be construed strictly, and temporary neglect or departure does not satisfy the statutory requirement of 'wholly abandoning' a child under section 328.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and true?
  • Does the temporary departure of a mother from her children, who remain in the care of family members, constitute 'abandonment' under section 328 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Should penal statutes be interpreted strictly or broadly in the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Ahmad vs Mr. Rafique Ahmad, A.A.G.2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Mst. Dilshada Bibi2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and 2 others vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-10
  cross-versionmurderself-defencefree-fightsuppression of factbenefit of doubtacquittalprivate defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a cross-version murder case and sentencing them to life imprisonment, along with a revision seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the appellants acted in the exercise of their right of private self-defence after the complainant party was found to be the aggressor in a free-fight. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution suppressed the material fact of the death of a person from the primary incident, that the ocular testimony contradicted the medical evidence regarding firearm injuries, and that the trial court correctly found the complainant party was the aggressor. Consequently, the Court established that the appellants legitimately exercised their right of private self-defence. The convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, and the sentence enhancement revision was dismissed as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suppression of a material fact or death in a counter-version creates a sufficient doubt in the prosecution case to warrant acquittal?
  • Does the right of private self-defence accrue to an accused party when the complainant party is established to be the aggressor in a free-fight?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted based on ocular testimony that stands directly contradicted by the medical and post-mortem evidence?
  • Can a criminal appeal be accepted and convictions set aside when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyundai Corporation vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and 32015 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-12Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Cantonment Board vs Raj Kumar and others2015 PSC 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-05-20
  cantonment boardparking feestatutory interpretationcharging sectiontax and feevirescantonments act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether the Cantonment Executive Officer or Cantonment Board is empowered under the Cantonments Act, 1924 to charge a parking/service fee from public transport vehicles using halting places and bus stands within the cantonment area. The appellant Hyderabad Cantonment Board levied parking fees on commercial vehicles, which was successfully challenged in the High Court of Sindh as lacking statutory backing. The Supreme Court evaluated Section 200 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and other relevant laws, holding that charging provisions must be strictly construed and any pecuniary burden requires explicit statutory sanction. The Court concluded that Section 200 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which pertains to stallages, rents, and fees for stalls, shops, and slaughter-houses, does not envision or authorize the levy of parking fees. Furthermore, although the subsequent Cantonments Ordinance, 2002 provides powers to levy parking fees, it was not yet operational due to the lack of a federal notification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that a public authority cannot extract fees without a valid, operational legislative provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Cantonment Board is empowered under Section 200 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 to levy parking fees on commercial vehicles?
  • Can a public authority impose a pecuniary burden, fee, or tax without explicit and operational statutory sanction?
  • Does an unnotified and unenforced ordinance provide valid legal backing for the collection of fees by a local government authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Cantonment Board vs Raj Kumar & others2015 PLJ SC 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-05-20
  cantonment boardparking feetaxation powercharging sectionstatutory interpretationultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the Hyderabad Cantonment Board challenges the High Court's judgment holding that the Board lacks the legal authority to levy parking fees on commercial public transport vehicles. The core legal question is whether the Cantonment Executive Officer or Cantonment Board is empowered under the Cantonment Act, 1924 to charge service or parking fees from public transport vehicles using halting places. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that charging provisions in statutes must be strictly construed and any pecuniary burden requires explicit statutory sanction. The Court found that Section 200 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 is strictly limited to stallages, rents, and fees for public markets and slaughter-houses, and does not encompass parking fees. Furthermore, while the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002 empowers the Board to levy parking fees, it remains unnotified and inoperative. The key principle laid down is that public authorities cannot levy taxes, fees, or pecuniary burdens without clear, unambiguous, and currently operational statutory backing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Cantonment Board is empowered under Section 200 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 to levy parking fees on commercial transport vehicles?
  • Can a public authority impose a fee or pecuniary burden without explicit and currently operational statutory backing?
  • Does an unnotified and unimplemented legislative instrument provide valid legal authority for the imposition of a fee?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Muhammad vs Vice-Chancellor, Islamia College, Peshawar2015 CLC 500 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-28
  constitutional petitionscholarship cancellationlocus poenitentiaevested rightsadministrative lawretrospective applicationnatural justiceuniversity policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Islamia College, Peshawar, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the petitioner’s foreign PhD scholarship. The University had cancelled the scholarship retrospectively, citing policy changes and allegations of bias in the initial selection process. The core legal question was whether an educational institution could retrospectively withdraw a scholarship award after the candidate had taken decisive steps in reliance thereon, absent any fraud or misrepresentation by the candidate. The Court held that while the University’s policy change regarding scholarship allocation was valid for future applications, it could not be applied retrospectively to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had acquired valuable rights through the scholarship award and subsequent actions. Applying the principle of locus poenitentiae, the Court ruled that an authority cannot rescind an order that has taken legal effect and created rights in an individual. Consequently, the Court declared the cancellation illegal and directed the University to issue the NOC. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities cannot retrospectively withdraw benefits once they have matured into vested rights, provided no fraud or misrepresentation occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory body retrospectively cancel a scholarship award after a candidate has taken decisive steps in reliance thereon?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent an authority from rescinding an order that has already taken legal effect?
  • Can a constitutional court interfere with a policy decision of a university regarding the allocation of scholarships?
  • What constitutes a valuable right sufficient to maintain a constitutional petition against an administrative action?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Can Company vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2015 LHC 2700 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux Memon through Attorney and anothers vs Karachi Building2015 YLR 2448 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22
  commercial use of residential propertybuilding control regulationseducational institutionslacheslease conditionsunauthorized constructionKarachi Building and Town Planning Regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the unauthorized commercial use of a residential plot for an educational institution and the construction of a ground-plus-three-storey building in violation of lease conditions and building laws. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition, the applicability of the doctrine of laches, and whether an educational institution could operate in a residential area without adhering to mandatory road width requirements. The Sindh High Court overruled the objections regarding maintainability and laches, noting that the petitioners had consistently pursued their grievances. On the merits, the Court held that the respondent’s activities violated the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, specifically Regulation 18-4.2.8, which requires a minimum 60-foot road width for educational institutions in residential zones. The Court emphasized that while education is a vital public interest, it cannot override mandatory statutory regulations or the rights of residents to peaceful living. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the closure of the commercial activity and the removal of unauthorized construction, while granting a grace period for student relocation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an educational institution operate in a residential area if the road width is less than 60 feet?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to petitions involving public interest and statutory violations?
  • Can a court dismiss a petition on the ground of laches if doing so would perpetuate an injustice?
  • Are educational institutions exempt from building and town planning laws in residential areas?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux and 2 others vs Muhammad Khan and 2 others2015 P Cr. L J 813 · Sindh High Court · 2013-01-29
  custody of seized propertysuperdaricriminal revisionrecovery of stolen cattlejurisdiction of magistratepossession
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants challenged the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge whereby custody of seized buffaloes was granted to the respondents following an inquiry report. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate could hand over the custody of seized property to claimants without determining rightful entitlement and disregarding the fact that the property was seized directly from the possession of the applicants and the respondents had delayed reporting the theft by a year and a half. The Sindh High Court held that a Magistrate is not a civil court empowered to decide title, and the person from whose possession property is seized is ordinarily entitled to its custody unless such possession is unlawful. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Magistrate to conduct a fresh inquiry involving expert opinion regarding the breed, race, and identification of the animals, as well as a thorough probe into the circumstances of the claims. The key principle laid down is that custody of seized property should not be handed over to a claimant on mere assertions without proper verification, and a Magistrate must prioritize the person from whose possession the property was seized pending proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate has the power to decide a dispute regarding the title or ownership of seized property?
  • Is a person from whose possession property is seized entitled to its custody unless their possession is found to be unlawful?
  • Can the custody of seized property be handed over to a claimant solely on the basis of a police inquiry report without expert identification of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain alias Hussain Bux vs StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailcounter versionprohibitory clausefurther inquiryaggressorsoti blow
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant/accused Khathoor seeking post-arrest bail in crime No. 71/2012 registered at Police Station Thul under sections 337-A(iii), 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving a counter version and an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case called for further inquiry because it was a counter version case, the point of aggression was yet to be determined at trial, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, and the accused in the counter case had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that in cases of counter versions where the determination of the aggressor requires further inquiry and the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, the accused is entitled to bail on the basis of rule of consistency and further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a counter version regarding the same incident make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of equal treatment when the opposite party in a counter case has been granted pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Husnain Abbas vs State, etc.s2015 KLR Criminal Cases 286, PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 418 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02
  post-arrest bailabscondencefurther inquiryovert actcommon intentionunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR at Police Station Kot Mithan, District Rajanpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when no overt act or firing was attributed to him, notwithstanding his status as an absconder. The Lahore High Court held that since no overt act was attributed to the petitioner, a co-accused with a similar role had been acquitted, and abscondence alone cannot be a ground to deny bail in a case calling for further inquiry, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that abscondence alone does not furnish a ground to decline bail where the case falls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and no other incriminating material connects the accused to the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether abscondence alone is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail when no overt act is attributed to the accused?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused with an identical role create grounds for further inquiry regarding the petitioner's guilt?
  • When is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Humma Ejaz vs Ms. Fozia Jabeen through Attorney2015 CLC 1071 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-16
  specific performancepower of attorneyregistration of documentsservice of summonsimmovable propertyalienation of propertycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding the sale of a bungalow, alleging an agreement with the defendant's attorney. The Court observed that the plaintiff had manipulated proceedings, specifically regarding the service of summons, which was purportedly effected on a maid—an invalid form of service. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to pay the costs for repeating notices, indicating an attempt to avoid proper service. Upon examining the merits, the Court found that the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff was not registered. Relying on established legal principles, the Court held that for the alienation of immovable property, a power of attorney must be registered under the Registration Act, 1908, to be enforceable. The Court also noted discrepancies in the power of attorney, including inconsistent signatures and misdescription of the property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit for specific performance, ruling that an unregistered power of attorney cannot authorize the sale of immovable property, rendering the alleged sale agreement unenforceable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a power of attorney used for the sale or alienation of immovable property required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908?
  • Can a suit for specific performance be maintained on the basis of an unregistered power of attorney?
  • Does service of summons on a maid constitute valid service upon a defendant in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Khan vs Zareen Khan2015 CLC 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-03Read full judgment →
• Humayun Akbar vs Returning Officer, Multan Cantonment; Multan2015 PLJ Lahore 980 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Humaira Hafeez vs Govt. of Punjab through Chairman Punjab Vocational2015 PLJ Lahore 190 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-05Read full judgment →
• Huma Maqsood vs Vice-Chancellor, Iqra University, etcK.L.R. 2015 Labour & Service Cases 23, 2015 C.L.R. 399 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-09Read full judgment →
• Hubdar Kalhoro vs NotSindh High Court · -
  criminal revisionbail bond forfeiturenon-bailable warrantsjudicial discretioncondonation of absencerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anticorruption (Provincial), Larkana, which forfeited the applicant's bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants (N.B.Ws) due to his absence from court on a single date. The applicant contended that his absence was due to illness, supported by a medical certificate, and that he had been regular in his court attendance throughout the trial. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its judicial discretion properly in rejecting the application for condonation of absence and issuing coercive process. The High Court held that the trial court's order was harsh and failed to properly exercise judicial discretion, as the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for his one-day absence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the applicant's absence, and maintained the existing bail conditions. The judgment reaffirms that revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be exercised to correct orders that are harsh, based on a misconception of facts, or contrary to the principles of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court forfeit bail bonds and issue non-bailable warrants for a single day of absence when a medical certificate is provided?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside an order of a trial court?
  • Is the issuance of non-bailable warrants justified when an accused has been regular in court attendance?
  Read full judgment →
• Hout Khan vs Shman Ali alias Shamsuddin and 4 others2015 MLD 1669 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-07Read full judgment →
• Honda Point (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs C.I.R, R.T.O., Lahore2015 PTD (Trib.) 1354 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2015-04-22
  tax recoverystay applicationcoercive measurespending appealtax demandinterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-IV), Lahore, which refused to grant a stay against the recovery of a tax demand amounting to Rs. 13,24,55,360 for the Tax Year 2009. The core legal question was whether the Department should be permitted to pursue coercive recovery proceedings against a taxpayer while an appeal against the underlying tax demand remains pending before the first appellate authority. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that the Department should not pursue recovery until the main appeal is decided. Relying on established judicial principles, the Tribunal reasoned that in the interest of fairness, equity, and justice, an assessee should not be compelled to satisfy a tax demand created by a Revenue authority until that demand has undergone the scrutiny of at least one independent appellate forum. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Department to cease recovery efforts, de-attach the taxpayer's bank accounts, and ordered the Commissioner (Appeals) to resolve the pending appeal within three weeks.

  Questions settled

  • Should a tax department pursue coercive recovery of a tax demand while an appeal against that demand is pending before the first appellate authority?
  • Is an assessee entitled to a stay of recovery proceedings until the tax demand has been scrutinized by an independent forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Honda Fort (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, R.T.O., Lahore2015 PTD (Trib.) 2629 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-12-09
  sales tax evasionshow-cause noticeinquiry and investigationretailer vs wholesalerspare parts taxationreconciliation of accountssales tax special procedures
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves five consolidated appeals filed by an authorized agent of an automobile manufacturer against orders-in-appeal upholding tax assessments and penalties for alleged sales tax evasion on spare parts supplies and discrepancies between sales tax returns and financial statements. The core legal questions concern the validity of assessment proceedings initiated without complying with statutory inquiry requirements, the correct classification and taxation method for spare parts supplied by a vehicle dealer registered as a retailer, and the reconciliation of sales between tax returns and audited accounts. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that assessment proceedings initiated without an inquiry or investigation authorized by the Commissioner under the relevant statutory provisions are void ab initio, that a registered person may engage in multiple commercial activities under distinct regulatory frameworks provided sales are properly segregated, and that the appellant's reconciliation established no discrepancies. The Tribunal laid down the principle that departmental actions taken in contravention of mandatory investigative procedures are illegal and that retailers supplying spare parts to end consumers are rightly taxed under the applicable special procedure rules for retailers rather than forced into standard wholesale classifications.

  Questions settled

  • Are assessment proceedings initiated by a tax officer without an inquiry or investigation authorized by the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 void ab initio?
  • Can a registered person classified or operating as a vehicle dealer also engage in retail supplies of spare parts under the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules 2007?
  • Whether the non-compliance with mandatory investigative prerequisites renders the consequential assessment and appellate orders legally unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Homoeopathic Doctor Aftab Hassan Minhas vs National Counsel for Homoeopathy through its Registrar_Secretary and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 991, 2015 PLJ Islamabad 190 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-04
  Intra Court AppealConstitutional PetitionDepartmental ProceedingsMaintainabilityLaw Reforms OrdinanceService Regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which had contested the appointment of a Registrar and the initiation of departmental inquiry proceedings. The core legal question was whether an Intra Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction when the underlying departmental law provides a remedy of appeal. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. Relying on the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and the precedent set in Karim Bibi vs. Hussain Bukhsh, the Court determined that if the law applicable to the original proceedings provides for an appeal, revision, or review, an Intra Court Appeal is barred. Since the National Council for Homoeopathy (Staff) Service Regulations, 1987, explicitly provided a right of appeal against departmental penalties, the constitutional challenge to those proceedings was precluded from further appeal. The Court affirmed that the appointment of the Registrar remained the prerogative of the Council.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra Court Appeal maintainable against a Single Judge's order in a Constitutional Petition if the underlying statute provides a right of appeal?
  • Does the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 bar an appeal where the original departmental proceedings are subject to an appellate remedy?
  • What constitutes an 'original order' for the purposes of determining the maintainability of an Intra Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Hizbullah vs Judicial Magistrate-I, Rohri2015 P Cr. L J 1413 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-08
  personal attendanceexemption from appearancemedical groundscriminal trialphysical incapacitypleader appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking exemption from personal appearance before the trial court due to severe medical conditions. The applicant, suffering from chronic spinal issues including disc herniation and spinal stenosis, contended that his physical condition, exacerbated by the trial court's location, rendered him incapable of attending proceedings without risking permanent paralysis. The State did not oppose the application after reviewing the medical evidence. The court examined the scope of Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that while it primarily addresses situations involving multiple accused, the principle allows for the exemption of an accused from personal attendance in exceptional circumstances where physical incapacity is established. Finding the medical evidence sufficient to prove the applicant's inability to travel or move without significant health risks, the court held that personal attendance could be dispensed with. The court granted the application, allowing the applicant to appear through his pleader, while reserving the trial court's discretion to require physical presence at the final disposal stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be exempted from personal attendance in a criminal trial due to severe medical incapacity?
  • Does Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit the exemption of an accused from personal appearance in exceptional circumstances?
  • May a trial court require the physical presence of an accused at the final disposal stage even if prior exemptions from attendance were granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Hina Manzoor vs Malik Ibrar Ahmed, etc.2015 PLD Supreme Court 396, 2015 PLJ SC 795, 2015 PSC 1301, 2015 P.S.C. 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-28
  election petitionverification on oathRepresentation of the People Actlimitation periodamendment of pleadingsdismissal of election petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an election appeal challenging the dismissal of an election petition by the Election Tribunal for want of proper verification under Section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether merely signing an election petition under the verification clause suffices without an oath being administered by an authorized person, and whether a subsequent verified memo filed after the period of limitation can cure such a defect. The Supreme Court held that the verification of an election petition on oath, attested by a competent authority, is mandatory under the election laws, and any subsequent rectification attempted after the expiry of the 45-day limitation period is barred. The court established that defects in the mandatory verification on oath cannot be cured by filing an amended petition out of time, as it affects valuable rights accrued to the returned candidate and does not constitute an amendment necessary to determine the real controversy on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does merely affixing a signature under the verification clause of an election petition without attestation by an authorized person satisfy Section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Is verification on oath of an election petition mandatory, and does its omission entail penal consequences resulting in dismissal?
  • Can a defective verification in an election petition be cured by filing a fresh or amended memorandum of the petition after the expiry of the period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hina Manzoor vs Malik Ibrar Ahmed and others2015 PLD Supreme Court 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-28
  election petitionverification on oathOath Commissionerlimitation periodamendment of pleadingssummary dismissalROPA
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of an election petition by the Election Tribunal under Section 63(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1976 (ROPA). The appellant, a runner-up candidate in NA-54 Rawalpindi, filed an election petition that lacked verification on oath before an Oath Commissioner or authorized officer, bearing only her signatures. She later submitted an amended memo cured of this defect, but after the 45-day limitation period prescribed under Section 52(2) of ROPA had expired. The core legal questions were whether verification under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires administration of an oath by an authorized person in election petitions, and whether a defective verification clause can be cured by amendment after limitation. The Supreme Court held that verification on oath before a competent authority is mandatory under election laws, with non-compliance triggering summary dismissal under Section 63(a). Furthermore, curing such a defect after limitation is impermissible as it does not determine the real issue in controversy and deprives the respondent of an accrued right.

  Questions settled

  • Does verification of an election petition under Order VI Rule 15 CPC require administration and attestation of an oath by an authorized officer?
  • Is the requirement of verification on oath in an election petition mandatory under the Representation of the People Act 1976?
  • Can a defect in the verification clause of an election petition be cured by amendment after the expiry of the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Himesh Khan vs The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Lahore' and others2015 KLR Supreme Court Cases 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  post-arrest baildelay in trialNational Accountability Ordinancestatutory delayconstitutional libertyspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal petition for leave to appeal arising from the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, the former chairman of the Bank of Punjab, who faced corruption charges in a NAB reference pending before an Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether an accused facing trial under special legislation like the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which generally restricts bail, can be granted post-arrest bail on the ground of inordinate and shocking delay in the conclusion of the trial not attributable to the accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same, granting bail to the petitioner. The holding establishes that where an accused has suffered prolonged incarceration for a shockingly long period and the delay in trial is not caused by their own acts or omissions, the broader principles of statutory delay and constitutional guarantees of liberty and speedy trial can be invoked, allowing courts to grant bail even in cases governed by special restrictive statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the ground of inordinate delay in trial to an accused facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the principles of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be pressed into service in hardship cases falling under special laws that restrict bail?
  • Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not caused by the accused, justify the release of the detained person on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Himesh Khan vs The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Lahore and others2015 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-14
  post-arrest bailinordinate delayspeedy trialNational Accountability Ordinanceconstitutional right to libertystatutory delayaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Himesh Khan, sought post-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference pending before an Accountability Court, where he had been incarcerated for approximately five years. The core legal question was whether an accused facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, could be granted bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial, despite the Ordinance's restrictive provisions regarding bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the trial's delay was not attributable to him but rather to the prosecution and co-accused. The Court affirmed that while the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, does not explicitly recognize bail, the broader principles of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding statutory delay can be invoked in hardship cases to protect an accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court established that an accused cannot be left indefinitely in custody due to prosecution delays, and that bail may be granted in such cases to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial?
  • Does the absence of specific bail provisions in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, preclude the application of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in cases of extreme hardship?
  • Is a delay in trial attributable to the prosecution and co-accused a valid ground for granting bail to an accused who has been incarcerated for a long duration?
  Read full judgment →
• Himesh Khan vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Lahore and others2015 KLR Supreme Court Cases 96, 2015 SCMR 1092, 2015 PLJ SC 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-14
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinanceinordinate delayspeedy trialconstitutional right to libertyaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused, Himesh Khan, facing trial in an Accountability Court for financial fraud charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The petitioner, incarcerated since 2009, sought bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial, which had spanned several years with numerous witnesses yet to be examined. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted for offences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, despite the absence of explicit statutory provisions for bail and the inapplicability of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the trial delay was not attributable to him but rather to the prosecution and co-accused. The Court affirmed that while the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 does not explicitly provide for bail, the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the broader principles of justice allow for bail in cases of shocking, non-attributable delay, preventing the accused from being held indefinitely without trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted to an accused under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, despite the absence of specific bail provisions in that statute?
  • Does the principle of inordinate delay in trial justify the grant of bail even when the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not strictly applicable?
  • Is an accused person entitled to bail if the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not attributable to their own conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• High Court Bar Association, Hyderabad High Court Bar Association, SukkurSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• High Court Bar Association, Bahawalpur vs Federation of Pakistan2015 PLD Lahore 317 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-20
  judicial appointmentsJudicial Commission of PakistanParliamentary Committeeconstitutional interpretationseparation of powersindependence of judiciaryjudicial reviewadditional judge
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court Bar Association of Bahawalpur and an advocate challenged the decision of the Parliamentary Committee under the proviso to Article 175A(12) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which refused to confirm the nomination of Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon as an Additional Judge of the Lahore High Court after he was unanimously approved by the Judicial Commission. The core legal question was whether the Parliamentary Committee could act as an appellate forum to review, reassess, and reverse the findings of the Judicial Commission regarding the professional competence and legal acumen of a judicial nominee. The Lahore High Court held that the Parliamentary Committee exceeded its constitutional mandate by evaluating the legal antecedents of the nominee—a domain reserved for the 13-member Judicial Commission—rather than focusing on personal antecedents and integrity. The Court ruled that the Committee cannot substitute its own opinion on professional merits for that of the Commission, and its decisions remain subject to judicial review. Consequently, the Court set aside the Committee's decision and directed the Federal Government to issue a notification for the nominee's appointment. The key principle laid down is that Article 175A establishes a two-step appointive process wherein the Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee function as coaxial, autonomous bodies with distinct, non-overlapping domains: the Commission judges professional legal competence, while the Committee examines personal antecedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Parliamentary Committee has the constitutional mandate to act as an appellate forum over the decisions of the Judicial Commission?
  • Can the Parliamentary Committee reassess and review the professional competence and legal acumen of a judicial nominee already evaluated by the Judicial Commission?
  • What is the extent of the respective functional domains of the Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee under Article 175A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the decisions of the Parliamentary Committee regarding the non-confirmation of a judicial nominee subject to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Hifeeza and 5 others vs General Public2015 PLD Balochistan 132 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Shah vs Ameer Khan and 2 others2015 YLR 2298 · Sindh High Court · 2013-04-22Read full judgment →
• Heman and Santosh vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealassaulting or using criminal force to womanstripping of clothesmodification of convictioncriminal procedureoutraging modesty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the conviction under Section 354-A PPC could be sustained when the essential statutory ingredients—specifically, the stripping of a woman and her exposure to public view—were lacking in the evidence. The court held that a conviction cannot be sustained if the necessary ingredients of the offence are missing. Although the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 354-A without proper foundational evidence of public exposure, the appellate court determined that the proven facts established an assault outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 PPC. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 354-A PPC, modified it to Section 354 PPC, and sentenced the appellants to the period already undergone, directing their immediate release. The key principle laid down is that conviction for an offence is legally unsustainable if the constituent ingredients of that specific provision are missing from the proved facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of an offence when the essential statutory ingredients of that offence are lacking in the evidence?
  • What are the necessary ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether an appellate court can modify a conviction from Section 354-A PPC to Section 354 PPC based on the established facts of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali alias Ghani vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 98 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-17
  murderconvictionacquittalappreciation of evidencemisreading of evidenceSection 342 statementcriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The trial court had rejected the entire prosecution case, including the testimony of eye-witnesses, the alleged motive, and the recovery of the weapon, yet proceeded to convict the appellant based on the testimony of a defence witness and the appellant's own statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained when the prosecution's evidence is entirely disbelieved. The High Court held that the trial court's judgment was based on a misreading and non-reading of evidence. Relying on established legal principles, the Court ruled that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, the accused must be acquitted, even if they have offered an explanation or plea. The statement of an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cannot be used to fill gaps in a failed prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appeal was accepted, and the death sentence was not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the entire prosecution case has been rejected?
  • Is it legally permissible to convict an accused based on the testimony of a defence witness when the prosecution's evidence has been disbelieved in its entirety?
  • Must an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove its case, regardless of any plea or explanation offered by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazir Zaman vs Bakht Zaman and 2 others2015 P Cr. L J 1142 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-16
  criminal appealmurdercompromiseQisas and Diyyatanti-terrorismfamily disputeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and other provisions for the murder of his wife inside a family court and related offenses. The core legal question was whether the murder arising from a domestic dispute constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the compromise reached between the appellant and the legal heirs of the deceased permitted an acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that the underlying motive being a family dispute regarding the dissolution of marriage lacked the essential elements of terrorism, thereby excluding the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Furthermore, the court held that since the legal heirs validly compounded the murder offense and waived their rights of Qisas and Diyyat, and the injured persons did not press charges, the appellant was entitled to an acquittal based on a composition of the offense pursuant to Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense arising from a purely domestic family dispute falls within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can legal heirs compound an offense of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does the composition of an offense by legal heirs result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the effect of an injured witness failing to appear and charge the accused for injuries sustained during an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazara Baig and 9 others vs Hazara Baig and 3 others2015 MLD 1672 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-24Read full judgment →
• Hayat Mir and 7 others vs Senior Members B.O.R., N.W.F.P., Peshawar and others2015 PLJ Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hassan Raza Naqvi vs Deedar Hussain Shah & Anothers2015 NLR Criminal 407 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-25
  appeal against acquittalacquittal at preliminary stagedouble presumption of innocencegroundless chargetheft by clerk or servantcriminal breach of trustcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the trial court acquitting the respondent-accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving offenses under Sections 381, 408, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused at a preliminary stage when no prosecution evidence had been recorded, and whether interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that trial courts possess ample power under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction. The court laid down that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate courts will not interfere unless the acquittal is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious, or resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before recording any prosecution evidence?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Under what circumstances can a charge be considered groundless for the purpose of pre-mature acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Pervez vs Shehzad Ayub and anotherSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Hassan Bakhsh. vs Sultan and two others.2015 LHC 6654 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-17
  arbitration awardreference to arbitrationconsent of partiesnon-speaking awardrevisional jurisdictionrule of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition called in question the judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby an arbitration award was made a rule of Court and the suit of respondent No.1 was decreed. The core legal question was whether a matter in a pending suit could be referred to arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 without the consent of all interested parties, and whether a non-speaking award lacking reasons could be made a rule of Court. The Lahore High Court held that a reference to arbitration requires the unanimous consent of all interested parties to the suit, and an award must contain sufficient reasons in compliance with Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court ruled that the reference was void ab initio for lacking the consent of all parties and that the non-speaking award could not be sustained. Consequently, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside and the suit was remanded for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a matter in a suit can be referred to arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 without the consent of all interested parties?
  • Is an arbitration award that lacks sufficient reasons maintainable under Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does a court have a duty under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to examine an award for patent illegality even when no objections are filed?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction if they suffer from patent legal errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan and 2 otherss vs The State2015 PLD Sindh 250 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-17
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitCNS Actseparate challansdistinct offencejurisdiction of courtcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application assailed an order of the Special Court (CNS) Karachi which dismissed the applicants' application under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicants were booked in a single F.I.R. involving recoveries of various narcotics and contraband, but the police submitted three separate challans before different courts: one for 8 kg bhang under Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 before a Magistrate, one for desi liquor under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 before another Magistrate, and one for heavy quantities of charas, heroin, and chemical powder under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 before the Special Court. After being acquitted by the Magistrates in the first two cases, the applicants sought quashment of the proceedings before the Special Court, arguing double jeopardy under Section 403, Cr.P.C. The Sindh High Court held that Section 403(1) applies only to a subsequent trial for the 'same offence' by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the offences were distinct, involved different quantities of separate contraband, and fell within the exclusive competence of different courts, the previous acquittals did not bar the separate trial for a distinct and heavier offense. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does acquittal for a lesser narcotics offence under Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 bar a subsequent trial for a distinct, heavier offence under Section 9(c) arising from the same F.I.R.?
  • Can an accused claim the protection of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the sole basis that the subsequent trial is on the same set of facts and witnesses?
  • Whether separate challans can be submitted before different courts of competent jurisdiction from a single F.I.R. when the recovered items constitute distinct offences under different statutes?
  • Does an acquittal by a Magistrate's court, which lacks jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, preclude proceedings before a Special Court CNS?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another vs Muhammad Arif2015 P.S.C. 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-17
  civil revisiondismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration applicationlimitation periodresiduary article 181inherent powersrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the leave of the Supreme Court addresses whether an application seeking the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution is governed by a specific article of the Limitation Act, 1908, or by the residuary Article 181. The appellants challenged a High Court order dismissing their civil revision for non-prosecution and a subsequent restoration application on the ground of being barred by a 30-day limitation period. The Court held that since the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not contain specific provisions for the dismissal and restoration of revision petitions, courts exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss and restore such petitions. Consequently, because no specific article in the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a limitation period for such restoration applications, the residuary Article 181 applies, providing a three-year limitation period from the date the right to apply accrues. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil revision before a higher court considered a valuable right or a mere privilege?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs an application for the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to restore a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Under which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can a court dismiss or restore a civil revision petition for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali vs Bakht Sawab and another2015 P Cr. L J 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-11
  private complaintcriminal revisioncheating by personationforgerycognizance of offenceremand orderNADRA Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a private complaint and remanded the case for trial. The petitioner argued that the complaint, alleging offences related to forged identity documents, was barred because it was not filed by the National Database and Registration Authority, as required by the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000. The core legal question was whether the statutory restriction on private complaints under the NADRA Ordinance applies to offences charged under the Pakistan Penal Code, and whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint. The High Court held that the complaint was filed under the Pakistan Penal Code, not the NADRA Ordinance; thus, the restriction on private complaints was inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint and initiates proceedings, the court must follow the mandatory procedure for recording evidence rather than summarily dismissing the complaint. The petition was dismissed, affirming the remand order for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction on filing complaints under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000 apply to offences charged under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a private complaint without recording evidence after having already taken cognizance of the matter?
  • Is a private person competent to file a complaint for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code involving forged identity documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali Grains (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Government of PAKISTANthrough Secretary M_o Finance and otherss2015 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-06
  regulatory dutyconfiscatory levyfreedom of traderight to propertydismissal for non-prosecutionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals were instituted before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following a remand order in an earlier round of litigation (Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf, PLD 1993 SC 176), wherein the High Court had been tasked with adjudicating a limited question. The core legal issue was whether the imposition and subsequent reduction of regulatory duty by the Government via notifications dated 07-04-1986 and 17-04-1986 amounted to a confiscatory exercise of State power violating fundamental rights to engage in trade and acquire property under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. On remand, a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court examined relevant domestic and comparative jurisprudence, concluding that the levy was not confiscatory. The Supreme Court concurred entirely with the High Court's findings and reasoning, holding that the regulatory duty did not constitute a confiscatory measure. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on merits, while certain connected appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the imposition and subsequent reduction of regulatory duty through governmental notifications amounted to a confiscatory exercise resulting in an unconstitutional deprivation of property?
  • Whether a regulatory duty imposed by the State infringes the fundamental right to conduct a lawful trade, business, or occupation under Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when neither the Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-on-Record appears despite the matter being listed?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali GONDALand others vs Messrs Karim Enterprises2015 YLR 544 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-12
  civil revisiontransfer of casejudicial biasrent tribunalfair trialinterlocutory ordersejectment petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an order of the District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of an ejectment petition from the Rent Tribunal. The petitioners alleged bias, citing the Tribunal's adverse interlocutory orders and perceived harsh conduct. The core legal question was whether these grounds sufficiently demonstrated a real likelihood of bias to warrant the transfer of the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mere fact that a judge has decided interlocutory applications against a party does not establish bias. The Court emphasized that for a transfer to be granted on grounds of bias, the applicant must establish a real likelihood of bias as a matter of fact, rather than mere suspicion or apprehension. The Court affirmed that expeditious case management does not constitute prejudice. Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the lower court's decision, reiterating that judicial orders are subject to appeal or revision rather than transfer applications based on dissatisfaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of interlocutory applications by a judge constitute sufficient grounds to establish bias for the transfer of a case?
  • Is a mere apprehension of bias in the mind of a litigant sufficient to warrant the transfer of a case from a Rent Tribunal?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandate the transfer of a case whenever a party is dissatisfied with the conduct of the presiding judge?
  • Must a real likelihood of bias be established as a matter of fact to justify the transfer of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Abbas vs Muhammad Mukarram, etc2015 LHC 3400 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16
  specific performancerevision petitiondecree sheetagreement to sellbona fide purchasermalafideCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The core legal questions were whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable without a decree sheet, and whether the petitioner was entitled to specific performance given the respondent's subsequent sale of the property to third parties. The Court held that, unlike an appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a revision petition does not require a decree sheet, as Section 115 only mandates copies of pleadings, documents, and the order. On merits, the Court found that the seller acted with malafide intent by continuing to engage with the petitioner while simultaneously selling the property to others. Since the subsequent purchasers failed to establish the defense of being bona fide purchasers for value without notice, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the petitioner, establishing that a seller's bad faith and a buyer's readiness to perform justify specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree sheet a mandatory requirement for filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the requirement to file a copy of the decree under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to revision petitions?
  • Can a suit for specific performance be decreed when the seller has acted in bad faith by selling the property to third parties during the subsistence of an agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Akhtar vs Justice of Peace/Asj Mian Channu District2015 YLR 2294 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
• Hasib Ahmad Rashid vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 4 others2015 P Cr. L J 979 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-03
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaubank loan fraudproperty valuationaccountability courtfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected constitutional petitions seeking post-arrest bail by accused persons facing trial in an Accountability Court under a National Accountability Bureau reference involving a bank loan fraud. The core legal questions concern whether sufficient incriminating material existed prima facie to connect the petitioners—two private property evaluators and a former regional bank head—with the principal accused in procuring a massive bank loan through allegedly overvalued properties. The Lahore High Court held that where evaluation reports were prepared at the request of a private entity rather than the bank, or where no evidence showed that the loan-sanctioning authority actually relied upon the subsequent evaluation reports, and where merely introducing an account holder or marking routine loan applications did not establish a conscious facilitation of the offense, the cases of the petitioners warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to all three petitioners. The key legal principle laid down is that tentative assessment at the bail stage must critically examine whether the nexus between an ancillary actor's professional duties and the principal crime is supported by tangible material or merely speculative presumptions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the preparation of a property evaluation report at the instance of a private party rather than the financing bank constitute sufficient ground to presume complicity in a bank fraud case for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the mere introduction of a principal accused as an account holder and the routine marking of loan applications by a bank official establishes reasonable grounds of involvement in a financial crime?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to demonstrate from record that the loan-sanctioning authority relied upon the allegedly bogus evaluation reports prepared by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Taj vs Mrs. Surayya Tariq and others2015 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-13Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Ali vs District Election Commissioner, Distt. Swabi and 32015 PLJ Peshawar 328 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hashim Aslam Butt vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and others2015 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-16Read full judgment →
• Hashim Aslam Butt vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry 01NLR 2015 Tax 115 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hashim Aslam Butt vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 245 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-04Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan111 TAX 221 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-12Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan etc2015 LHC 679 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-12Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and others2015 PTD 1665 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-12Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Wages Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2015 LHC 679, 2015 PTD 1665, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 603 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-12
  reference applicationsales taxappellate tribunaljurisdiction of High Courtquestion of lawlimitationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several Reference Applications filed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenging orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax. The applicants sought to raise a new legal plea regarding the limitation period for adjudication under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which had not been agitated before the lower forums. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its special jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, could entertain a question of law that was not raised before or adjudicated upon by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that its jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by the statutory requirement that the question of law must arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that a new legal plea, even if it constitutes a pure question of law, cannot be introduced for the first time in a reference application if it was not part of the proceedings below. The reference applications were dismissed as the raised issue did not emerge from the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new question of law in a reference application before the High Court if it was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to decide questions of law that do not arise from the order of the Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does the expression 'arising out of such order' in Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, preclude the High Court from considering legal pleas not agitated before the departmental hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• Hascol Petroleum Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and anotherPTCL 2015 CL.802, 2015 PTD 877 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-05
  customs detentionvessel seizurebonded warehouseimport policymotor gasolinegoods declarationstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the detention of its vessel and cargo by Customs and FIA officials, who alleged that the imported product was Pyrolysis Gasoline rather than the declared Motor Gasoline. The petitioner contended that the detention was mala fide, lacked lawful authority, and violated established import policies. The respondents, unable to justify the detention, admitted that the action was premature and withdrew the detention notice issued under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition by consent, directing the release of the vessel and the cargo. The court held that customs authorities must strictly adhere to the legal procedures prescribed by the Customs Act, 1969, and related regulations before initiating any seizure or detention. The judgment underscores that arbitrary detention without valid grounds or compliance with statutory formalities constitutes an unlawful exercise of power, and authorities are obligated to process import documentation in accordance with the law without causing undue harassment to the importer.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs authorities detain a vessel or cargo without following the mandatory statutory procedures for seizure?
  • Is the detention of imported goods lawful if the authorities act prematurely before the filing of a Goods Declaration?
  • Are customs authorities required to provide valid grounds and notice before initiating the detention of imported cargo?
  Read full judgment →
• Hascol Petroleum Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and anotherPTCL 2015 CL.802 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-05Read full judgment →
• Harrappa Textile Mills Harrappa, Tehsil and District Sahiwal through its Resident_Executive Director and another vs Muhammad Iqbal and anothers2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 280, 2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 273 · Peshawar High Court
  grievance petitionindustrial relationsillegal terminationreinstatementseniority listback benefitsgainful employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent filed a grievance petition under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, challenging his termination from service by the appellant textile mills. The respondent claimed he was forced to sign a resignation and was subsequently terminated without a show-cause notice or regular enquiry, following a dispute over whether his reinstatement in 1999 constituted continuity of service or a fresh appointment, which affected his seniority and led to his retrenchment. The trial court allowed the grievance petition and set aside the termination order. The appellant mills filed an appeal before the Tribunal, arguing that the respondent admitted to doing agricultural work (zamindara) and that the trial court failed to consider this aspect regarding back benefits. The core legal question concerned the legality of the termination and retrenchment based on a disputed fresh appointment interpretation and the entitlement to back benefits. The Tribunal held that the respondent's reinstatement meant continuity of his previous service without back benefits rather than a fresh appointment, and that agricultural activity does not constitute gainful employment disentitling an employee to back benefits. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does reinstatement of an employee following a court order constitute a continuity of previous service or a fresh appointment?
  • Can an employer treat an employee's reinstatement as a fresh appointment to alter their seniority and retrench them?
  • Does engaging in agricultural work (zamindara) amount to gainful employment that disentitles a wrongfully terminated employee to back benefits?
  • Is a termination order passed on the basis of a forced resignation and without a show-cause notice sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Harrappa Textile Mills Harrappa, Tehsil and District Sahiwal through its Resident_Executive Director and another vs Muhammad Iqbal and another2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal
  wrongful terminationreinstatementback benefitsindustrial relationsgainful employmentseniority listcolorable exercise of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, a former employee of the appellant textile mills, filed a grievance petition under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, challenging his termination. The respondent alleged he was forced to sign a resignation letter and was subsequently terminated without due process. The appellant argued the termination was lawful and that the respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere, citing his admission of performing 'zamindara' (farming) activities. The trial court set aside the termination, finding it a colorable exercise of jurisdiction, as the appellant had improperly treated the respondent's reinstatement as a fresh appointment to manipulate seniority. The Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the appellant's interpretation of the reinstatement order was incorrect. The Tribunal further held that engaging in 'zamindara' does not constitute gainful employment sufficient to disentitle a wrongfully terminated employee from back benefits, as there was no proof of alternative service or business. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the reinstatement and the entitlement to back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the performance of 'zamindara' (farming) activities by a terminated employee constitute gainful employment sufficient to deny back benefits?
  • Can an employer treat a court-ordered reinstatement as a fresh appointment to manipulate seniority?
  • Is a resignation obtained forcibly valid under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Husnain Abbas vs The State, etc2015 KLR Criminal Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02
  post-arrest bailabscondancefurther inquiryovert actcommon intentioncriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Husnain Abbas seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 119/2009 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering that no overt act or firing was attributed to him, despite his prolonged abscondance. The Lahore High Court held that since no overt act was attributed to the petitioner, a co-accused with an identical role had already been acquitted, and abscondance alone cannot be a ground to deny bail in a case calling for further inquiry, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that abscondance alone cannot furnish a ground to decline bail to an accused person in a case where further inquiry into guilt is warranted, as abscondance is merely a factor relevant to propriety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused to an accused merely on the ground of his abscondance when no overt act is attributed to him?
  • Does abscondance alone furnish sufficient ground to decline bail in a case calling for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right if his case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Zaman and another vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2015 C.L.R. 392 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-06Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rasheed Daraz Khan vs The State the State2015 LHC 5829 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-17
  narcotics recoveryconscious knowledgedual capacity of complainant and investigating officerconfiscation of vehiclesuperdariburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a single trial court judgment concerning a narcotics case where a large quantity of charas and garda charas was recovered from a vehicle. The first appeal was filed by the convicted driver challenging his conviction under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, while the second appeal was filed by a third party claiming to be the bona fide owner of the confiscated vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved conscious possession and guilt of the driver, whether an investigative officer can act as the complainant, and whether the vehicle could be legally confiscated without affording an opportunity of hearing and determining the owner's knowledge under the statute. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and guilt, raising a presumption against the accused under Section 29, and that a police officer may act as both complainant and investigating officer if no prejudice is caused. However, the court held that the confiscation of the vehicle was illegal because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, requiring proof of the owner's knowledge and a prior opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the driver's conviction was upheld, and the appeal regarding the vehicle's confiscation was allowed, setting aside that part of the judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer can act simultaneously as a complainant and an investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof to the accused once the prosecution establishes initial recovery?
  • Is it mandatory for the court to determine the owner's knowledge and provide an opportunity of hearing before ordering the confiscation of a vehicle used in a narcotics offense?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on different grounds vitiate the conviction of an accused apprehended at the spot with narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Gaba vs NotSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequerule of consistencyprohibitory clausefurther inquirynon-bailable offencedishonest intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Haroon Gaba, charged under Sections 406, 420, 489-F, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of two cheques issued in a business transaction. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had been granted bail, and whether the offence, not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, mandated the grant of bail. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the rule of consistency did not apply because the applicant was the specific signatory of the dishonoured cheques, establishing a prima facie case of dishonest intention. The Court affirmed the principle that bail in non-bailable offences, even those outside the prohibitory clause, is not a matter of right and remains a discretionary relief. The applicant failed to establish that the case required further inquiry or that he had taken remedial measures to settle the outstanding debt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to a co-accused who is the primary signatory of a dishonoured cheque?
  • Is the grant of bail a matter of right in non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the issuance of a cheque with dishonest intention constitute a prima facie case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Ahmed and others vs Secretary Communication and Works2015 MLD 1220 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-02Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and 2 others vs The State and another2015 LHC 8622 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-03
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRvicarious liabilityhurtta'zircriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks pre-arrest bail in respect of offences under Sections 337F(v), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the specific roles attributed to them, and the applicability of Section 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained fifteen-day delay in registering the FIR prima facie indicates deliberation and consultation, and noted that the petitioners are previous non-convicts, not hardened criminals, and did not commit the offence on the pretext of honour. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principles that vicarious liability is to be determined at trial after evidence, that recovery loses significance after a long passage of time, and that an accused who has joined the investigation should not be sent to jail when false implication cannot be ruled out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of fifteen days in the registration of an FIR creates a prima facie case of deliberation and consultation for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does Section 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the imposition of ta'zir imprisonment on an offender who is a previous non-convict and has not committed the crime on the pretext of honour?
  • Can an accused person be denied pre-arrest bail solely for the purpose of effecting recoveries when the occurrence took place months prior and the accused has already joined the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and 2 others vs Secretary Zakat and Ushr Committee, Punjab, Lahore and 33 others2015 PLJ Lahore 654 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hamsons Industries vs Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad2015 PTD 455 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2013-09-14
  provisional assessmentcustoms dutyrefund claimstatutory finalityvaluation disputepost-dated cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  The complainant sought a refund of customs duty and allied taxes, arguing that the Department failed to finalize a provisional assessment within the statutory period prescribed under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, thereby rendering the declared value final. The Department contended that the provisional assessment, which included the differential amount secured through a post-dated cheque, attained finality by operation of law under Section 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, upon the expiry of the statutory period, regardless of whether a formal assessment order was issued. The Federal Tax Ombudsman held that the provisional assessment, encompassing both the declared value and the secured differential amount, became final upon the lapse of the period specified in Section 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Ombudsman concluded that the recovery of the secured amount was legally valid and that no case for a refund existed. The key principle established is that under the unamended Section 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, a provisional assessment attains finality automatically upon the expiry of the statutory period, rendering the issuance of a formal assessment order unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provisional assessment under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, attain finality automatically upon the expiry of the period prescribed in Section 81(2) if no formal assessment order is issued?
  • Is the issuance of a formal assessment order mandatory for a provisional assessment to attain finality under Section 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the definition of provisional assessment under the Customs Act, 1969, include duties and taxes secured through a post-dated cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamood-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi & Ibad-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailrobberydacoitycriminal recordrecovery of robbed articleshabitual offenders
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants, Hamood-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi and Ibad-ur-Rehman Khan Niazi, seeking post-arrest release in FIR No. 105/2015 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi, concerning an alleged armed robbery of Rs. 30,000,000 and other valuables during a business transaction. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, prompt FIR registration, availability of eyewitnesses, recovery of robbed articles, and their extensive criminal history involving similar offenses. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail, dismissing the application. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is prima facie connected to a non-bailable offense through prompt reporting, eyewitness accounts, and recovery of robbed items, coupled with a demonstrated history of similar criminal conduct, bail ought to be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted in a case of armed robbery where the accused are nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with specific roles and corroborative recoveries?
  • Does a history of involvement in multiple similar criminal cases disentitle an accused from claiming post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the absence of previous enmity between the complainant and the accused affects the assessment of a prima facie case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Hammad Haider vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 590 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-20
  criminal appealmurderself-defenceocular accountmedical evidencejuvenile offenderconviction upheld
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder case registered via FIR No. 106 of 2005. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant's plea of self-defence was sustainable in the circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account was straightforward and confidence-inspiring, corroborated by medical evidence, and that the plea of self-defence was not available to the appellant as he sustained no injuries during the occurrence and the deceased party had merely gone to lodge a complaint. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The key principles laid down include the standard of appraisal for ocular and medical evidence in murder trials, and the strict conditions required to substantiate a plea of self-defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of self-defence is available to an accused who sustained no injuries during the occurrence?
  • Does an ocular account corroborated by medical evidence warrant a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence requires interference when findings are firmly established on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamida Farhat Burki vs Capital Development Authority and 3 others2015 PLJ Islamabad 368 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-18Read full judgment →
• Hamid Hussain Paliwalla vs Firasat Hussain Paliwalla and others2015 PLD Sindh 304 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-24
  administration suitinheritanceShia Islamic Lawwilldissolution of partnershiplimitationnecessary party
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit for administration, appointment of receiver, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction was filed in respect of the estate of the deceased Imdad Hussain by one of his sons against his brothers. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for administration is barred by limitation or non-joinder of parties, whether the deceased had validly executed a will excluding the plaintiff from inheritance, and whether a partnership firm of the deceased was dissolved during his lifetime. The Sindh High Court held that no period of limitation is prescribed for a suit for administration, that such a suit does not fail for non-joinder of a legal heir, that under Shia Islamic Law a bequest of the entire estate to heirs without the consent of other heirs is invalid, and that the partnership firm stood validly dissolved prior to the death of the deceased. The court laid down principles regarding the limitation-free nature of administration suits, the invalidity of wills disposing of more than one-third of an estate or favoring heirs without consent, and the devolution of property upon death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether any period of limitation is prescribed for filing a suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person?
  • Does a suit for administration fail solely for the non-joinder of a necessary legal heir?
  • Is a will executed by a Muslim in favor of his heirs valid under Shia law without the consent of other legal heirs?
  • Whether an heir in possession of property can be considered in constructive possession on behalf of all legal heirs so that limitation does not run against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailextortioncriminal intimidationabsconsionprohibitory clausebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Hameed, who is charged in an FIR for extortion and criminal intimidation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of extortion, the statements of prosecution witnesses, and the applicant's history of absconsion. The Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail. The Court observed that the applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR, and multiple prosecution witnesses recorded statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating him in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been a fugitive from law for two years prior to his arrest, and the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting an accused to a serious offence like extortion, and the accused has a history of absconsion, bail should be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a history of absconsion justify the refusal of post-arrest bail in an extortion case?
  • Can the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered at the bail stage?
  • Is an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 involving extortion considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan vs Muhammad FahimSindh High Court · -
  trademark infringementpassing offtemporary injunctiondeceptive similaritybalance of conveniencegoodwill and reputation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court, authored by Salahuddin Panhwar, J., addresses two civil miscellaneous applications concerning an ad-interim injunction and the recall of a status-quo order in a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff, manufacturer of the well-known herbal syrup 'Rooh Afza', sought to restrain the defendant from marketing a competing syrup under the label 'Rooh-e-Samar'. The core legal question revolved around whether the defendant's label and trade mark were deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, thereby constituting infringement and justifying the grant of a temporary injunction. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that upon visual and phonetic comparison, the colour scheme, calligraphy, presentation, and overall get-up of the two products were sufficiently distinct so as not to confuse an ordinary consumer. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's injunction application and disposed of the defendant's recall application. The key principle laid down is that the test for trademark infringement and deceptive similarity must be evaluated from the perspective of an ordinary consumer of average intelligence, focusing on overall visual and phonetic impression rather than microscopic side-by-side comparison, while balancing the protection of registered trademarks against the constitutional right to conduct lawful trade.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted in a trademark infringement suit without establishing a strong prima facie case of deceptive similarity?
  • How should the test of deceptive similarity or confusion be applied from the perspective of an ordinary consumer?
  • Does the registration of a trademark under the Trade Marks Ordinance restrict a citizen's fundamental right to conduct a lawful business under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What role do overall colour scheme, calligraphy, and general get-up play in determining trademark infringement compared to phonetic similarity alone?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakmin Zafar vs The State etc.2015 LHC 1456 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-06
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentionovert actbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of Hakmin Zafar and Imran Arshad for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The appellants were convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court primarily on the basis of vicarious liability, despite being empty-handed and having no overt acts attributed to them during the incident. The core legal question was whether mere presence at the scene of a crime, without evidence of common intention or an overt act, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the principle of vicarious liability. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention or any overt act on the part of the appellants. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that vicarious liability cannot be invoked based on mere presence; there must be proof of an overt act done in furtherance of a common intention to connect an accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere presence at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish vicarious liability under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the principle of vicarious liability require proof of an overt act done in furtherance of a common intention?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to attribute any specific overt act to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Zada vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 1171 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-10
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurderacquittalinquest reportadverse presumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, whose body was discovered in a room locked from the inside. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, despite the absence of eyewitnesses, forensic links, or proof of the appellant's presence at the scene. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court observed that the prosecution withheld material witnesses, triggering an adverse presumption, and failed to account for the physical impossibility of the appellant committing the crime while attending his own marriage ceremony elsewhere. Additionally, the court noted the failure to comply with mandatory inquest procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution's case was based on conjecture rather than solid proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withholding of material evidence by the prosecution create an adverse presumption against its case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the accused's presence at the scene of the crime?
  • What is the legal consequence of a failure to comply with the inquest procedures mandated by Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution fails to exclude the possibility of suicide?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan, etc vs Falak Sher, etc.2015 LHC 3685 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-05
  inheritancelimited ownerShariat Actcompromise decreepast and closed transactionShia law of inheritancecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the inheritance of land originally owned by Pehlwan and subsequently held by his son Muhammad Nawaz and mother Ghulam Fatima. The core legal question was whether a 1946 compromise decree, which created a limited ownership interest for Ghulam Fatima with a remainder to Ghazi, remained enforceable after the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948. The High Court held that while the portion of land transferred to Ghazi under the 1946 decree constituted a past and closed transaction, the remaining portion held by Ghulam Fatima became her absolute property upon the promulgation of the 1948 Act. Consequently, the compromise decree regarding the remainder was rendered inexecutable, and the property devolved upon her legal heir, Mehar Mai. The principle established is that under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, a limited owner becomes an absolute owner, rendering prior conditional compromise decrees regarding the remainder inexecutable, though completed transfers remain valid as past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 render a prior compromise decree creating a limited ownership interest inexecutable?
  • Can a compromise decree involving the transfer of land be considered a past and closed transaction if implemented before the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948?
  • Does a limited owner under customary law become an absolute owner of property upon the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajji Sheral son of Hajji Mahmood vs (1) Mr. Ahsan Gul Dahri, Advocate (2)Sindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailabscondancefugitive from lawproclaimed offenderrule of consistencyfirearm injurydelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this application, the applicant sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 302, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the attribution of a fatal firearm injury, an inordinate abscondance of five years, and the principle of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail, declining the application on the ground that a specific fatal role was attributed to him, he was a proclaimed offender who remained a fugitive from law without lawful justification, and the rule of consistency did not apply since his case was distinguishable from co-accused who only engaged in aerial firing. The key principles laid down include that a fugitive from law loses substantial rights creating an adverse inference, delay alone does not warrant bail when an accused is linked to a fatal injury, and the rule of consistency applies only where circumstances of cases are identical.

  Questions settled

  • Does a fugitive from law lose substantial rights regarding the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR alone is sufficient to entitle an accused to post-arrest bail when a fatal role is attributed?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused have been granted bail but the applicant is assigned the fatal injury?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to challenge proclamation proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Zaro Jan vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB, KPK and another2015 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-29
  National Accountability OrdinanceBenamidarAudi alteram partemNatural justiceConfiscation of propertyAssets beyond meansRight to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an Ehtesab criminal appeal and two connected writ petitions challenging a judgment by the Accountability Court, which convicted the appellant for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and ordered the confiscation of properties held in the names of his benamidars. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s forfeiture of these properties without issuing formal show-cause notices or providing the benamidars an opportunity to defend their ownership claims violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that the trial court’s failure to provide such an opportunity was unlawful. Relying on the maxim audi alteram partem, the Court ruled that the right to be heard is an inherent principle of natural justice applicable to all statutes unless expressly excluded. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the case for a fresh trial with the direction that the Accountability Court must issue show-cause notices to the benamidars and allow them to adduce evidence regarding their property interests before passing any adverse order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the confiscation of assets held in the name of a benamidar without a specific show-cause notice violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can the appearance of a benamidar as a defense witness in a criminal trial serve as a valid substitute for a formal notice and opportunity to defend their property interests?
  • Are the principles of natural justice applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, even in the absence of an express statutory provision for notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Zahid Saeed vs Messrs Asif Brothers and others2015 CLD 40 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-23
  execution of decreecourt auctionreserve pricefraud in auctionlimitation periodproclamation of salebanking court
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal arises from execution proceedings of a money decree where two properties of the judgment debtor were auctioned. The core legal questions involve the validity of auction proceedings conducted without complying with mandatory procedural requirements such as notice and proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the absence of a court-fixed reserve price, and whether the applicable limitation period is governed by Article 166 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the total omission of mandatory procedures, lack of a reserve price, and apparent connivance between the court auctioneers and purchasers rendered the auction proceedings fraudulent, void, and inoperative in law. The Court ruled that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to applications to set aside void execution sales tainted with fraud. The key principles laid down are that a court sale conducted without a judicially fixed reserve price and proper proclamation is a nullity, and executing courts possess inherent and suo motu powers under both the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 to scrutinize auction processes and unearth fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission to issue a proclamation and fix a reserve price under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 renders an execution auction sale void?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to an application by a judgment debtor to set aside an execution sale tainted by fraud and material irregularities?
  • Does an executing court have inherent or suo motu powers to scrutinize auction proceedings and set aside a fraudulent sale?
  • Whether a second application to set aside an auction sale is maintainable when a prior application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was withdrawn?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Zahid Saeed and anothers vs Messrs Asif Brothers and 3 others2015 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-23
  execution proceedingscourt auctionreserve pricefraud in auctionproclamation of salelimitation periodbanking court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses two concurrent First Appeals against Orders (F.A.O. No. 47 of 2010 and F.A.O. No. 102 of 2010 arising from execution proceedings in a banking dispute. The core legal question revolved around the legality of auction proceedings, the mandatory compliance of Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding proclamation and reserve price, and whether fraud and material irregularities vitiated the court auction. The Lahore High Court held that non-compliance with statutory provisions for issuing notices and proclamations, the absence of a judicially fixed reserve price, and suspicious auction conduct demonstrated collusion and fraud between the court auctioneers and the purchasers. The court ruled that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to void execution sales vitiated by fraud rather than Article 166. The appeal of the auction purchaser was dismissed, the sale of both properties was set aside, and the judgment-debtor was permitted to settle the decretal amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to fix a reserve price and issue a proper proclamation under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 renders an execution auction sale void?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to an application to set aside an execution sale vitiated by fraud and material irregularities?
  • Does an executing court possess inherent jurisdiction and suo motu powers to scrutinize auction proceedings and unearth fraud?
  • Whether withdrawal of a prior objection petition under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bars a judgment-debtor from challenging fraudulent execution proceedings through a subsequent valid application?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Zafar Abbas vs The State etc2015 LHC 7633 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23
  narcotics recoverychemical examiner reporttest protocolsbenefit of doubtmaterial contradictionspossession of charascriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to nineteen years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, material contradictions among witnesses, and the legal validity of a Chemical Examiner's report that fails to state the protocols and tests applied as mandated by law. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions regarding the recovery and description of the contraband, coupled with an incomplete Chemical Examiner's report lacking test protocols, vitiate the prosecution's case and create a strong shadow of doubt. Consequently, the court laid down that a Chemical Examiner's report must disclose the full protocols and procedures to serve as conclusive proof under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Chemical Examiner's report lacking test protocols qualify as conclusive proof under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether material contradictions between eyewitnesses regarding the recovery of narcotics are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  • Is an opinion rendered by a Chemical Examiner admissible without being supported by reasons and full protocols of the tests applied?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Syed Maroof Shah and 4 others vs Syed Sher Shah and 5 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Shaizullah Khan vs Haji Nawab through LRS.2015 NLR Civil 552 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-22
  benami transactionburden of proofdeclaratory suitperpetual injunctioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree whereby the District Judge accepted the respondent's appeal, set aside the trial court's dismissal, and decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding a shop. The core legal question concerns whether the suit property was purchased as a benami transaction, where the plaintiff claimed to be the real owner having paid the consideration and remained in possession, while the nominal title was in the defendant's name. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff successfully discharged the initial onus of proving the benami transaction through overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, including long-standing possession, payment of taxes, utility bills, and funding the reconstruction, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, which the defendant failed to rebut. The key principle laid down is that while the initial burden to prove a benami transaction lies on the person alleging it, once established through positive evidence, the onus shifts to the ostensible owner to disprove it, and failure to do so results in the plaintiff's success.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the initial burden of proof when a transaction is alleged to be of benami nature?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the opposite party once the person alleging a benami transaction discharges their initial onus?
  • What are the determining factors to be taken into consideration with regard to a benami transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Shaizullah Khan vs Haji Nawab (deceased) through his L.Rs,2015 NLR Civil 552, 2015 PLJ Peshawar 200 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-22
  benami transactionburden of proofcivil revisionownership declarationperpetual injunctionappellate jurisdictionrebuttal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment decreeing the respondent's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding a shop. The core legal question was whether the suit property, purchased in the petitioner's name, was a benami transaction where the respondent remained the true owner. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, finding the respondent had established ownership. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that the respondent successfully discharged the initial burden of proof by demonstrating the source of consideration, long-standing possession, payment of taxes, and funding of property improvements. The court affirmed that while the initial burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the claimant, this burden shifts once the claimant provides cogent evidence. Since the respondent proved the determining factors—source of funds, possession, and motive—and the petitioner failed to rebut this evidence, the appellate court's decision was maintained. The court emphasized that once the burden shifts to the defendant, failure to discharge it results in the plaintiff's success.

  Questions settled

  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie when a transaction is alleged to be benami?
  • Can the burden of proof shift from the plaintiff to the defendant during the trial of a suit?
  • What are the primary factors to be considered when determining if a transaction is benami?
  • Does the weakness in the defendant's evidence relieve the plaintiff from the burden of proving their case?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ramzan vs The Member Judicial & anotherSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Haji Raja Muhammad Akram and others vs Riaz Ahmad and others2015 MLD 477 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Rafeed Gul & others vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Raees Khan and others vs Haq Nawaz and others2015 YLR 1614 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-16Read full judgment →