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.

• Akhtar Ali Ghowada vs The State2015 MLD 1661 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-12
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquirydelayed FIRidentification paradeCCTV evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 392/34 and subsequently 395/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged dacoity at a godown. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the delayed FIR, the lack of recovery, the absence of an identification parade, and the questionable applicability of section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which requires five or more perpetrators, whereas the FIR alleged only four. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution’s case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, no incriminating items were recovered from the applicant, and the identification of the accused was not established through a formal parade. Consequently, the Court granted bail, noting that the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage favored the applicant, without prejudice to the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an identification parade for an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to explain a significant delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Is the applicability of Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 questionable when the FIR alleges the involvement of fewer than five persons?
  • Does the lack of recovery of stolen property from the accused justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhlaque Hussain Memon and others vs Water and Power Development2015 PLC (C.S.) 596 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-09
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionpromotion and reversiondue processaudi alteram partemnatural justicemaster and servantnon-statutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of promotions and subsequent reversion of graduate engineers from higher grades (BS-17 and BS-18) back to their previous posts by Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO). The core legal questions involved whether employees of a non-statutory body lacking statutory service rules can invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court against adverse departmental actions, and whether an order withdrawing promotions and demoting employees without prior notice, show-cause, or opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and due process. The court held that even where service rules are non-statutory, aggrieved employees can maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4 and 10-A. The court ruled that the inquiry proceedings conducted behind the backs of the petitioners were coram non judice, void ab initio, and tainted with malice, and that demoting employees without a fair hearing violates audi alteram partem and due process. The impugned reversion orders were set aside, restoring the petitioners to their promoted positions while permitting the department to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees of a corporate body governed by non-statutory rules invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether an adverse departmental order of reversion passed without a show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae permit a departmental authority to withdraw a promotion after decisive steps have been taken and vested rights have accrued?
  • Are inquiry proceedings conducted behind the back of an employee without making them a party deemed coram non judice and void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali, Ex-Constable vs Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 152 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service appealmisconductdepartmental inquirycompetent authorityacquittalreinstatementback benefitsPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an ex-constable, challenged his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings. Initially dismissed for misconduct, the appellant successfully appealed, leading to a remand where an inquiry officer exonerated him. However, the competent authority (CCPO Lahore) disagreed with the inquiry report and reinstated the dismissal without providing cogent reasons or adhering to the procedural requirements of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Additionally, the appellant had been acquitted in a related criminal case under the Kite Flying Ordinance, which had attained finality. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the competent authority failed to comply with Section 13(3) and Section 13(6) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, by failing to record reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry officer or ordering a de novo inquiry. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed that an official acquitted of criminal charges cannot be dismissed from service on the same grounds. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the dismissal orders were set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a competent authority required to provide written reasons when disagreeing with the findings of an inquiry officer under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Can a civil servant be dismissed from service on the same grounds for which they have been acquitted by a competent court of law?
  • What are the procedural obligations of a competent authority under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 when dissatisfied with inquiry proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan vs Provincial Government through Secretary and 8 others2015 YLR 1920 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ajmal and 2 others The State vs The State and another Ajmal and 2 others2015 LHC 2358 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-25
  abduction for ransomcircumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencejoint disclosurerecovery of deadbodycall data recordbenefit of doubtsifting grain from chaff
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under sections 365-A, 302, and 201 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sections 7(a) and 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, resulting in death sentences and a reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involve the reliability of circumstantial evidence, last-seen evidence, joint disclosure statements, and recoveries in establishing guilt for abduction for ransom and murder. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the primary appellant through reliable last-seen evidence, call-data records of ransom calls, medical evidence, and the exclusive recovery of the deadbody and motorcycle from his premises, leading to the confirmation of his death sentence. However, the court held that the evidence against the co-appellants—consisting of mere following in a rickshaw, subsequent disclosure statements, and unlinked recoveries—was insufficient and tenuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence for the primary appellant while allowing the appeal and acquitting the co-appellants on the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that while the grain must be sifted from the chaff in criminal cases without applying falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, a conviction on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken, conclusive chain of circumstances, and a subsequent disclosure statement is legally ineffective where the primary accused has already disclosed the fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of one day in lodging an FIR for abduction vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can a subsequent disclosure statement made by co-accused regarding the recovery of a deadbody be considered legally efficacious after the primary accused has already disclosed the same?
  • Whether circumstantial evidence consisting of last-seen testimony, call-data records, and exclusive recoveries forms an unbreakable chain sufficient to maintain a capital conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of recoveries when the substantive evidence connecting them to the crime is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal & others vs Secretary Safron, Islamabad and 2 others2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 249 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealmajor penaltyregular inquirydismissal from servicedue processdiscriminatory treatmentBajaur Leviesback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, personnel of the Bajaur Levies, challenged their dismissal from service for alleged cowardice and desertion during militant attacks. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of civil servants for serious misconduct is lawful when imposed without a regular inquiry or show-cause notice. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the dismissal orders were unsustainable in law. The Tribunal established that a major penalty, such as dismissal, cannot be imposed upon a civil servant without holding a regular inquiry to substantiate serious factual allegations, especially when those allegations are denied by the accused. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that the authority's failure to provide a regular inquiry violated established legal principles. It also noted that discriminatory treatment, where similarly situated employees were reinstated while others were dismissed for identical allegations, violated the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned dismissal orders, ordered the reinstatement of the appellants, and directed that back benefits be determined by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of dismissal be imposed on a civil servant without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Is a dismissal order lawful if issued without a show-cause notice or opportunity for personal hearing?
  • Does the discriminatory reinstatement of similarly situated employees violate the constitutional right to equal protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan and one other vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-17Read full judgment →
• Aizaz Ullah and anothers vs Provincial Government (KPK) through Secretary Education, Peshawar and others2015 PLJ Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aimna Bibi vs Muhammad Hussain and another2015 MLD 1008 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-10-21
  gift deedfraud and forgeryparol evidence rulecorrection of instrumentburden of proofdeclaratory suitdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from cross-suits concerning the validity and scope of a registered gift deed. The appellant challenged the deed, alleging fraud and impersonation, while the respondents sought to correct the deed to include additional land, claiming an omission by the petition writer. The trial court dismissed both suits for lack of proof. The first appellate court partially accepted the respondents' appeal, allowing the correction of the deed, which the appellant subsequently challenged. The High Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations of fraud, and the appellate court erred in allowing the correction of the deed. The Court determined that the documentary evidence, including the NOC and official records, contradicted the respondents' claim regarding the scope of the gift. Applying the principle that oral evidence cannot vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument, the Court restored the trial court's judgment dismissing both suits. The decision reinforces that parties must prove their claims and that courts must interpret deeds based on their plain, written terms rather than extrinsic oral assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Can oral evidence be admitted to vary or contradict the terms of a registered gift deed?
  • Does the burden of proving fraud in the execution of a gift deed lie upon the party alleging it?
  • Is a court permitted to order the correction of a registered gift deed based on oral testimony when official documentary evidence contradicts the proposed correction?
  Read full judgment →
• Aib Group (UK) PLC vs Mark Redler & Co Solicitors2015 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Ai-Hamza Shipbreaking Co. and 14 others vs Government of Pakistan2015 KLR S.C. 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Import Trade PriceCustoms valuationStructured discretionDelegated legislationShipbreakingConstitutional jurisdictionAdministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns appeals against the Balochistan High Court's dismissal of petitions filed by ship-breaking companies challenging the Customs Department's refusal to revise Import Trade Prices (ITP) for vessels. The appellants argued that despite evidence of significant price declines in the international market, the Controller of Customs Valuation failed to revise the ITP as mandated by the "Parameters" established under Section 25B of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the Controller could ignore these binding guidelines and whether the High Court erred in treating the matter as a disputed question of fact. The Supreme Court held that while Section 25B allows for ITP fixation, it must be read in conjunction with Section 25, and executive discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court affirmed that the "Parameters" were binding, and the Controller's failure to act upon evidence of price fluctuations violated the principles of structured discretion and the rule of law. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgments and remanded the cases for fresh determination, emphasizing that statutory powers must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive authority fix import trade prices in a manner that overrides the substantive valuation provisions of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the failure of a statutory functionary to follow self-imposed guidelines (Parameters) for price revision constitute an arbitrary exercise of power?
  • Is a decision by a statutory functionary based solely on the direction of a superior officer, rather than on the merits of the case, valid in law?
  • Can the High Court dismiss a constitutional petition on the ground of disputed facts when the case involves a clear violation of established administrative guidelines?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsar Mahmood vs Jamshed Ahmed Mustafa Zuberi, etc2015 C.L.R. 197 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-08-25Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Brothers vs Federation of Pakistan & others111 TAX 473 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ahmedo Kandrani vs StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest baildacoitydelay in FIRfurther inquirycriminal intimidationwrongful confinement
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Ahmedo Kandrani sought post-arrest bail in Crime No.36/2012 registered at Police Station Resaldar under sections 395, 342, and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The core legal questions involved whether the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, previous enmity between the parties, lack of recovery, and the absence of injuries during the alleged dacoity made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry, granting bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, admitted prior enmity, no recovery of incriminating articles, and doubtful circumstances regarding how a dacoity was committed without any resistance or injury among co-villagers, a prima facie case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is established, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR along with previous enmity justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the absence of injuries or resistance during an alleged dacoity involving co-villagers creates a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no incriminating articles or weapons are recovered during the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Yar through L.Rs vs Additional District Judge and others2015 YLR 2476 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-22
  constitutional petitionlandlord and tenantejectment petitiondenial of tenancyownership disputerent restrictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an appellate court judgment that set aside the dismissal of an ejectment petition and ordered the tenant's eviction. The core legal question was whether the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the ownership of the property in rent proceedings where the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed independent ownership. The Lahore High Court held that while a landlord generally need not establish ownership in rent proceedings, where a tenant denies tenancy and claims ownership, the burden heavily lies on the tenant to prove holding in their own right, which the petitioner failed to do. The court ruled that the appellate court rightly evaluated the evidence to establish ownership and tenancy, and dismissed the petition, laying down that concurrent findings on the relationship of landlord and tenant based on unchallenged oral and documentary evidence in rent matters warrant no interference under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appellate court exceeds its jurisdiction by examining property ownership when a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does the mere pendency of a civil revision petition against concurrent findings of a declaratory suit affect ongoing rent proceedings?
  • What is the burden of proof when a respondent in an ejectment petition denies tenancy and claims to be the owner of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs The State2015 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-26
  reduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesunwitnessed occurrencefailure to prove motiveprolonged incarcerationcompensationSection 201 PPCcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC for a 1996 murder based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant challenged his sentence, seeking a reduction from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions pertained to whether failure to prove the alleged motive, along with prolonged incarceration and reliance solely on circumstantial evidence, constituted sufficient mitigating grounds to reduce a capital sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence, holding that failure to establish motive in an unwitnessed occurrence, coupled with over eighteen years of incarceration, justified reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court further held that a sentence of fine under Section 302 PPC is unlawful and must be substituted with compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. Additionally, the Court laid down that a conviction under Section 201 PPC cannot be recorded simultaneously alongside a conviction under Section 302 PPC. The appeal was partly allowed regarding sentence modification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in an unwitnessed occurrence constitute a valid ground to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can prolonged incarceration under a death sentence serve as a basis for mitigating sentence when combined with other circumstances?
  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted under Section 201 PPC and Section 302 PPC for the same incident?
  • Is a trial court empowered to impose a fine under Section 302 PPC instead of ordering payment of compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed Siddiqui and others vs Pakistan through Secretary2015 PLC (C.S.) 923 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-22
  promotionCentral Selection Boardfitness and suitabilityconstitutional jurisdictiondue processcivil servantdeferment of promotionselection posts
  Summary & questions settled

  The subject constitutional petitions challenged the decisions of the Central Selection Board (CSB) deferring the promotion of the petitioners from BPS-20 to BPS-21 and BPS-19 to BPS-20 in the Inland Revenue Service, alongside challenging the Office Memorandum dated October 12, 2012. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of constitutional petitions in service matters under Article 199 versus the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the CSB could defer promotions based on unarticulated subjective assessments without disclosing adverse material or adhering to principles of natural justice and due process. The Sindh High Court held that while the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters of 'fitness and suitability' for selection posts, the High Court retains constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to correct arbitrary or non-transparent actions violating Articles 4 and 10-A. The Court laid down that assessment of fitness for selection posts must be rooted in objective, transparent criteria and tangible material, and any adverse action requires procedural fairness and disclosure of material to the affected civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is barred by Article 212 in matters relating to the fitness and suitability of a civil servant for promotion to selection posts?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested right to be promoted, or is the right restricted to being fairly considered for promotion in accordance with the law?
  • Can the Central Selection Board defer or supersede a civil servant for promotion based on undisclosed adverse remarks or subjective impressions without relying on tangible material?
  • Whether the requirements of fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to the administrative proceedings of the Central Selection Board during promotion evaluations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Parekh and 5 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2015 PLD Sindh 221 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-27
  carrier liabilitycarriage of goods by seastriking out partycivil procedurefatal accident damagesdischarge of cargo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by Defendant No. 4, a shipping company, seeking to have its name struck off the array of defendants in a suit for damages arising from a fatal accident. The accident occurred when a container, previously transported by sea and offloaded, toppled from a local vehicle during inland transit, causing fatalities. The core legal question is whether a maritime carrier remains liable for an accident caused by a container after it has been safely discharged from the ship and handed over for inland transportation. The Sindh High Court held that the liability of a carrier for carriage of goods by sea ends once the goods are discharged from the ship and freed from the ship's tackle, and the carrier is not responsible for subsequent acts of negligence during inland transport or packing done by the shipper. Consequently, the court allowed the application and struck off the name of Defendant No. 4 from the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a maritime carrier's liability for cargo cease once the goods are discharged from the ship and freed from the ship's tackle?
  • Can a shipping company be held liable for an accident occurring during the inland transportation of a container after safe discharge from the vessel?
  • Is a maritime carrier responsible for the internal packaging and loading of cargo performed entirely by the shipper?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani and 6 others vs Muhammad Farooq and anothersPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Karachi) 748 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-15
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of process of lawanti-corruptionprivate complaintcognizancealternative remedyinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of private complaint proceedings pending against them before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption under Sections 420, 468, 471, 167, 403 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be quashed under Section 561-A CrPC without first approaching the trial court under Section 249-A CrPC, and whether the complaint and preliminary inquiry disclosed any cognizable criminal offense. The court held that where no criminal offense is made out from the complaint and the preliminary inquiry report clearly states no offense is made out, continuing the prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of law, making an application under Section 249-A a futile exercise. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable without first moving the trial court under Section 249-A?
  • Does the continuation of a criminal trial constitute an abuse of the process of law when no criminal offense is made out from the complaint and preliminary inquiry?
  • Whether taking cognizance by a trial court on a sketchy and vague private complaint without proper application of mind is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 5384 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26
  post-arrest bailcross-versionself-defencefurther inquirycounter-versionsvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.99-2015 registered under Sections 302, 337/A(i), A(ii), L(ii), 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of a cross-version, the right of private defence, and the applicability of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that in cases of counter-versions arising from the same incident, where both parties sustained injuries and suppressed facts in the initial report, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail. Furthermore, the court laid down that if one party in a cross-version is granted bail, the other party generally becomes entitled to the same treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused in a cross-version case is entitled to post-arrest bail when the question of who is the aggressor requires further inquiry?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused side in the initial FIR make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether grant of bail to one party in a cross-version case entitles the opposite party to the same treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hassan Bilal vs Secretary Education Department, Government2015 PLC (C.S.) 695 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 2014-04-03
  service appeallimitation perioddepartmental remedymisconductbogus documentscivil servanttime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed before the Balochistan Service Tribunal challenging the termination of the appellant, a civil servant in the Education Department, following allegations of misconduct including the use of fake and bogus documents to secure leave and transfers. The core legal questions were whether the appeal was maintainable given the appellant's failure to exhaust the departmental remedy by appealing to the Chief Secretary, and whether the appeal was barred by limitation due to the significant delay in filing. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the appellant failed to pursue the mandatory departmental appeal process. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the appeal to be hopelessly time-barred, noting that the appellant failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that the law of limitation in service matters is not a mere technicality but a significant requirement, and civil servants must exhaust departmental remedies and adhere to prescribed timelines before seeking judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable if the civil servant has failed to exhaust the departmental remedy?
  • Can a delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned without sufficient cause?
  • Is the question of limitation in service matters considered a mere technicality?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Din vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 478 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-20
  qatal-e-amddeath sentenceimprisonment for lifeunproven motiverelated witnessesforensic science laboratory reportbenefit of doubtreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatal-e-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and chance eye-witnesses, the effect of unproven motive on the quantum of sentence, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports where weapon and cartridge empties experienced delayed transmission to the laboratory. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and free of established enmity, was sufficient to maintain the conviction, but found that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and delayed sending recovered items to the forensic lab without explanation. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction but converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, establishing the principle that unproven motive and delayed forensic transmission serve as extenuating circumstances warranting leniency in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere inter se relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render their testimony unreliable in a murder trial?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive in a capital case?
  • Can a delayed transmission of crime empties and a recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the forensic match report inconclusive?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence as an extenuating circumstance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and 2 others vs Ahlian-E Koshmara through Representatives and another2015 YLR 1688 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmed alias Makro and 3 others vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 523 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-24
  appellate jurisdictionHudood lawsFederal Shariat Courtcriminal appealTazkiya Al-Shuhoodjurisdictional competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the initial charge being framed under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court possessed appellate jurisdiction when a trial court convicts an accused under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after initially proceeding under Hudood laws. The Court held that the appeal lies exclusively with the Federal Shariat Court. The ratio is that the Federal Shariat Court’s jurisdiction under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is triggered by the nature of the proceedings—specifically, whether the case relates to the enforcement of Hudood—rather than the final conviction provision. The Court emphasized that because the trial court was required to adjudicate on the applicability of Hudood provisions (specifically regarding Tazkiya Al-Shuhood and Section 20 of the Ordinance), the matter constitutes a case relating to the enforcement of Hudood. Consequently, the High Court returned the appeal for presentation before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have appellate jurisdiction over a case where the accused was charged under Hudood laws but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the taking of cognizance by a court synonymous with the commencement of a trial?
  • Does the phrase 'relating to enforcement of Hudood' in Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 define the scope of the Federal Shariat Court's appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Faysal Bank Limited and othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Faysal Bank Limited and 3 others2015 CLD 498 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali s/o Mohammad Ramzan Mangrio vs NotSindh High Court · -
  custody of minorshabeas corpushizanattender ageguardianshipinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the custody of three minor children by their mother, invoking the right of Hizanat. The core legal question was whether the High Court can entertain a habeas corpus petition for the temporary custody of minors of tender age under Section 491, Cr.P.C., or if the parties must exclusively approach the Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Sindh High Court held that the High Court is empowered under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to issue directions for the interim custody of minors of tender age if their custody has been illegally or improperly disturbed, without prejudice to the final determination by the Guardian Court. The Court laid down that the jurisdiction under Section 491 can be invoked in cases of improper or illegal custody of tender-aged children who require the constant care of their mother, and that such interim orders do not bar parties from establishing their claims before the Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant interim custody of minors under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an application under Section 491 Cr.P.C. maintainable for the custody of minors of tender age when the matter can also be taken to the Guardian Judge?
  • Does the grant of interim custody under Section 491 Cr.P.C. bar a party from establishing their claim before the Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali and 2 others vs The State and another2015 LHC 2393 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon objectfalse implicationinvestigation reportaerial firing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by three petitioners facing charges under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Following the withdrawal of the petition by one co-accused, the Court examined the cases of the remaining two petitioners. The Court noted that these petitioners were implicated during the third segment of the occurrence, assigned only generalized roles of aerial firing, and were found innocent by the investigating officer, resulting in their placement in column No. II of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the question of vicarious liability under sections 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a matter for trial after evidence is recorded and cannot be determined at the bail stage. Finding that the complainant had implicated a large number of persons, including several found innocent, the Court concluded that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can the question of vicarious liability under sections 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be determined at the bail stage?
  • Does the fact that an accused was found innocent by the investigating officer and placed in column II of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2)?
  • Is the wide implication of multiple accused persons by a complainant, where several are later declared innocent, a relevant factor in considering bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmadullah vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Zamir vs Jehan Mir2015 YLR 2470 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shah and another vs Israr-Ud-Din2015 PLJ Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Jamil Qureshi vs Cherat Cement Company Ltd2015 MLD 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Jaleel Raja vs The State2015 YLR 2049 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-18
  defective investigationnatural justiceright to fair hearingnarcotics trialsummary convictioninvestigating officerprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a trial court judgment that summarily convicted and sentenced an investigating officer for defective investigation during a narcotics trial. The core legal question is whether a trial court possesses the authority to convict an investigating officer under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, without issuing a prior notice or granting an opportunity to be heard. The High Court held that the trial court’s action was legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and a violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing. The court emphasized that an investigating officer cannot be condemned behind their back without being called upon to clarify alleged shortcomings in the investigation. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside. The court further declined to remand the matter for a fresh trial, citing the excessive lapse of twelve years and the mental trauma already endured by the appellant. This judgment reaffirms that procedural fairness and the right to be heard are mandatory prerequisites before any punitive action can be taken against an official for professional conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an investigating officer for defective investigation without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Is a summary conviction of an investigating officer sustainable without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the principle of natural justice require a trial court to hear an investigating officer before penalizing them for investigative lapses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Iqbal Satti vs The State etc.2015 LHC 6275 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-30
  pre-arrest bailbailable offenceforest produceillegal timberdouble jeopardycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 379 and 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 26, The Forest Act 1927, involving the alleged illegal removal of timber. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the circumstances of his involvement. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio established that the grant of bail in bailable offences is a matter of right rather than grace. Furthermore, the Court observed that where an accused is charged under multiple statutes for similar offences, they should be tried for the offence carrying the lesser sentence. Given that the petitioner was not apprehended at the scene and no recovery was required from him, the Court concluded that arrest would serve no useful purpose and would only cause unjustifiable harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail in a bailable offence a matter of right or grace?
  • When an accused is charged under two different statutes for similar offences, which offence should they be tried for?
  • Does the arrest of an accused serve a useful purpose when they were not apprehended at the spot and no recovery is required from them?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan vs Muhammad Arshad2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-03
  rejection of plaintperformance evaluation reportcivil servant indemnitysuit for damagesmalicious prosecutionlimitation periodreporting officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the order of the trial court dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for damages filed against a reporting officer who recorded adverse remarks in the respondent's Performance Evaluation Report. The core legal questions involve whether a civil servant is protected by statutory immunity for official acts done in good faith, whether a suit for damages is maintainable in the absence of malice, and whether the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a cause of action. The Peshawar High Court held that the reporting officer acted within his legal duty, that the adverse remarks were endorsed by the countersigning officer eliminating imputed malice, and that statutory immunities under the relevant civil servant laws bar such suits. The court laid down the principle that reporting officers enjoy statutory indemnity against damage suits for official evaluations performed in good faith, and that vexatious litigation challenging administrative performance reports must be curbed by rejecting plaints that fail to disclose a valid cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 23-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 provide statutory immunity to a civil servant against suits for damages for official acts performed in good faith?
  • Whether a civil suit for damages is maintainable against a reporting officer for recording adverse remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report that were subsequently approved by the countersigning officer?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where the suit is barred by statutory immunity and lacks a valid cause of action?
  • What is the applicable limitation period for filing a suit for compensation regarding an irregular official act under the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan Bucha vs The Chairman, NADRA, etc2015 C.L.R. 27 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-12
  dismissal from servicedue processfair trialregular inquirymajor penaltydisciplinary proceedingsNADRAshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition challenging an order of dismissal from service issued by NADRA against a Data Entry Operator. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of dismissal could be lawfully imposed upon an employee without conducting a regular inquiry, relying solely on a show-cause notice and an opportunity for personal hearing. The High Court set aside the dismissal order, holding that the procedure adopted was illegal. The court determined that the authority cannot dispense with a regular inquiry when imposing a major penalty, particularly when the employee was denied access to requested documents necessary for their defense. The court affirmed that the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process of law under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, mandates that major penalties in disciplinary proceedings cannot be imposed without a regular inquiry and the provision of a meaningful opportunity to defend. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with back benefits, with liberty granted to the respondents to initiate a de novo inquiry if they choose to proceed further.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Does the denial of access to documents requested by an employee during disciplinary proceedings violate the right to due process?
  • Is the issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for personal hearing sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan Bucha vs Chairman, NADRA and others2015 C.L.R. 27, 2015 PLJ Lahore 262, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 381 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-12
  dismissal from servicedue process of lawfair trialregular inquiryshow-cause noticemisconductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator, challenged his dismissal from service via an office order following allegations of misconduct, including attempting to settle matters for illegal motives regarding CNIC processing and writing fake numbers. The petitioner argued that the major penalty was imposed without a regular inquiry and recording of evidence, violating Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court examined whether a major penalty of dismissal could be imposed without a regular inquiry based solely on a show-cause notice and personal hearing. The Court held that the fundamental right to due process and fair trial under Article 10-A requires a regular inquiry and the opportunity to defend oneself, which includes supplying requested documents. Mere issuance of a show-cause notice and personal hearing is insufficient when allegations are contested and documents are withheld. The impugned dismissal order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with back benefits, leaving it open for the respondents to initiate a de novo regular inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority impose a major penalty of dismissal from service without holding a regular inquiry and recording evidence?
  • Does dispensing with a regular inquiry under disciplinary rules violate the right to due process and fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is the mere issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity of personal hearing sufficient to meet the requirements of due process in disciplinary proceedings?
  • What is the effect of failing to provide requested documents to an employee facing disciplinary action prior to the imposition of a major penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan Bucha vs Chairman NADRA, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-12
  due processfair trialmajor penaltydismissal from serviceregular inquirymisconductservice lawconstitutional guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator at NADRA, challenged his dismissal from service, which was imposed following allegations of misconduct without a regular inquiry. The core legal question was whether the respondent could impose a major penalty of dismissal solely based on a show-cause notice and personal hearing, without conducting a regular inquiry or providing the petitioner with requested documents. The court held that the dismissal order was passed in violation of the principle of due process. It determined that the mere issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for personal hearing does not satisfy the requirements of due process when the accused is denied access to necessary documents for their defense. Consequently, the court set aside the dismissal order, directed the petitioner's reinstatement with back benefits, and ruled that any further disciplinary action must be conducted through a de-novo regular inquiry. The judgment affirms that Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guarantees a fair trial and due process, which mandates a regular inquiry for major penalties in service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed without holding a regular inquiry?
  • Does the denial of requested documents to an accused employee violate the principle of due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is the mere issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for personal hearing sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a fair trial in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Gul vs The State2015 MLD 507 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-11
  narcotics possessionconscious possessionburden of proofcriminal appealsecret cavitiesControl of Narcotic Substances Actacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 336 kilograms of charas recovered from secret cavities of a truck in which he was a passenger. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s mere presence in the vehicle, without evidence of his knowledge or control over the concealed narcotics, satisfied the legal requirement of 'possession.' The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s conscious possession or any nexus with the contraband or the driver. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment establishes the key principle that 'possession' under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, necessitates proof of conscious knowledge and control by the accused. Mere presence in a vehicle containing hidden narcotics is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless the prosecution proves the accused had knowledge of the concealment or a direct relationship with the illicit substance.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence of an accused in a vehicle containing narcotics in secret cavities constitute possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove conscious knowledge of the accused before the burden of proof shifts under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's presence in a vehicle where the contraband was concealed in secret cavities?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din Abdul Sattar alias Sattari vs Abdul Sattar alias Sattari etc The State2015 LHC 2913 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-01
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnessprivate complaintacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court in a private complaint case involving multiple murders. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the ocular evidence and its consistency with the medical reports. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to be unreliable, noting significant contradictions, discrepancies, and improbabilities regarding their presence at the scene, the timing of the incident, and the source of light. Furthermore, the Court observed a sharp conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, specifically regarding the direction and nature of the injuries, which rendered the prosecution's version of events highly doubtful. The Court emphasized that motive is a double-edged weapon and that the witnesses were interested and inimical. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative, reiterating that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is in direct conflict with the medical evidence?
  • Does the presence of enmity between the complainant party and the accused render the testimony of witnesses inherently unreliable?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the timing of an FIR and the presence of witnesses at the scene warrant the setting aside of a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali, etc vs Sh. Amin Ellahi2015 C.L.R. 1261 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali, etc vs Sh. Aman Ellahi2015 LHC 2719 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-14
  surety liabilitycompromise decreeexecution of decreeobjection petitionsurety bondcontract act equitable principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of an execution case where the appellant, a surety for the defendants in a recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenged the executability of a compromise decree passed against him. The core legal question concerns the continuation or cessation of a surety's liability under a surety bond when a suit is resolved via compromise without the surety's presence or consent. The Lahore High Court held that the executing court erred in dismissing the surety's objection petition as not maintainable without framing issues or applying established tests governing surety liability under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and equitable principles of the Contract Act 1872. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the executing court for a fresh decision after framing appropriate issues. The key principle laid down is that a surety's liability under a court-executed bond during a compromise decree depends on specific factual tests, including whether the bond contemplated amicable settlement, whether the compromise introduced extraneous matters, or whether the surety was seriously prejudiced.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety's liability under a surety bond continue or cease when a compromise decree is passed without the surety's presence?
  • What are the tests to determine whether a surety stands discharged under a surety bond following an amicable settlement between the primary parties?
  • Do Sections 133 to 141 of the Contract Act 1872 apply in terms to surety bonds executed in favour of a court?
  • Is an objection petition filed by a surety against the execution of a compromise decree maintainable without framing issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Yousafzai vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09
  post-arrest bailcompromisefurther inquiryanti-terrorismnon-compoundable offencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two bail applications filed by accused-petitioners Ahmad Ali Yousafzai and Muhammad Asim, who were charged under Section 506/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, in connection with FIR No. 78. The petitioners challenged the refusal of bail by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted in a non-compoundable offence when the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise and the complainant is unwilling to pursue the prosecution. The Peshawar High Court held that while the offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 is not compoundable, the complainant's refusal to depose against the accused renders the case one of further inquiry. The Court established the principle that where a complainant voluntarily forgives the accused and enters into an outside-court settlement, this serves as a valid ground for granting bail in the interest of justice and equity, as courts should not compel prosecution when the complainant is unwilling to proceed, especially where co-accused have already been granted bail on similar grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted in a non-compoundable offence if the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused?
  • Does the unwillingness of a complainant to depose against the accused constitute a ground for further inquiry under bail law?
  • Should courts compel the prosecution of a case when the complainant party is no longer willing to pursue the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali and anothers vs Sheikh Aman Elahi2015 C.L.R. 1261, 2015 LHC 2719, 2015 CLC 1704 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Agritech Ltd vs Mr. S.M Attique Shah, Addl2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-23Read full judgment →
• Agriculture Engineering Union, Balochistan' vs Agriculture2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 49 · Labour Appellate Tribunal
  trade union registrationcollective bargaining agentreferendumvoid orderlabour lawindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Labour Court which, while declaring the registration of a trade union void, simultaneously ordered a referendum to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA). The core legal question was whether a referendum is legally permissible or required under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, when the cancellation of one union's registration leaves only a single registered trade union in the establishment. The Tribunal held that the term 'void' signifies that the registration is a nullity and of no legal effect, effectively cancelling the union's status. Consequently, with only one registered union remaining, the statutory conditions for a referendum—which require the existence of multiple unions—are not met. The Tribunal ruled that the Labour Court's order for a referendum was inconsistent with the provisions of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, which mandate a referendum only when there are multiple registered unions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned judgment, confirming that no referendum is required where only one union exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the declaration of a trade union's registration as 'void' by a Labour Court effectively cancel that registration?
  • Is a referendum for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent required under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, when only one registered trade union exists in an establishment?
  • Can a Labour Court order a referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent after declaring the registration of a competing union void?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Zahid Ali Hilali vs Muhammad Riaz and Others2015 NLR Civil 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-09-23
  summoning of witnessesconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitiondiscretionary reliefjust decision of the casepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed a writ petition and permitted the respondents to summon a scribe and a stamp vendor as witnesses. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion of the lower forums regarding the summoning of witnesses whose names were omitted from the initial witness list. The Supreme Court held that the examination of the scribe and stamp vendor was imperative for the just decision of the case, and the omission to include them earlier—prompted by counsel's inexperience or lack of understanding—constituted a good cause. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, ruling that the discretion exercised in aid of justice was neither arbitrary nor whimsical. The key principle laid down is that procedural omissions resulting from inadvertence or lack of experience may constitute good cause for summoning necessary witnesses to ensure a just decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether omission to include a witness in the initial witness list can constitute good cause for summoning the witness later?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with an order regarding the summoning of witnesses?
  • Is the examination of a scribe and stamp vendor considered imperative for the just decision of a case involving disputed documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah vs Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and 8 others2015 CLC 708 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-15
  rejection of plaintlimitationgift deedmutationinheritancecause of actioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting the applicant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in a suit for declaration, cancellation, and permanent injunction. The applicant claimed ownership of agricultural land based on a 1971 gift deed, seeking to cancel a 1990 inheritance mutation entry in favor of the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether a misplaced document suspends the running of limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was hopelessly time-barred as the limitation period began upon the execution of the gift and the 1990 mutation, and that subsequent inability or the misplacement of a document does not stop time from running once it has commenced. The court affirmed that limitation is mandatory, must be applied by the court under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, and that personal inability does not extend limitation under sections 4 to 25 of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the misplacement of a document of title suspend the running of limitation for filing a suit?
  • Whether a suit seeking declaration of ownership based on an old gift deed and cancellation of a subsequent inheritance mutation is barred by limitation after several decades?
  • Can personal inability or delayed discovery of a misplaced gift deed extend the prescribed period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. when the bar of limitation is apparent on the face of the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Raza and anothers vs Mst. Tamseela Fazil and 2 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-23Read full judgment →
• Agha Imtiaz Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ziauddin and 2 others2015 P Cr. L J 205 · Sindh High Court · 2013-09-24
  acquittal at any stageillegal dispossessionnon-speaking orderabuse of process of the courtprivate complaintcriminal revisioninherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the dismissal of an application filed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking acquittal in a private complaint concerning alleged illegal dispossession from a commercial shop. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the acquittal application without considering police enquiry reports, statements, and affidavits disclaiming the accused person's possession or ownership of the disputed property. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court passed a non-speaking order, ignored material exonerating evidence, and failed to exercise its discretion properly under Section 265-K, subjecting the accused to an unwarranted and prolonged trial where conviction was improbable. The court laid down the principle that Section 265-K empowers courts to acquit an accused at any stage without recording evidence when there is no probability of conviction, thereby preventing an abuse of the court's process, and that provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 must be properly attracted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording prosecution evidence?
  • Does the dismissal of an acquittal application without considering police reports and material disclaiming the accused's possession constitute a non-speaking order?
  • Can criminal proceedings be allowed to continue when there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the alleged offence?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent an abuse of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Imtiaz Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ziauddin & 2 OthersSindh High Court · -
  acquittal at any stageillegal dispossessionrevision applicationabuse of processnon-speaking orderprivate complaintpolice report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the dismissal of the applicant's application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the trial court in a dispute concerning alleged illegal dispossession from a shopping mall shop. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing acquittal at an early stage despite police reports and statements showing the accused had no possession or claim over the disputed property. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's order was non-speaking and failed to consider police reports and the applicant's consistent disclaimers of possession or ownership. The court laid down the principle that section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers courts to acquit an accused at any stage without recording evidence when there is no probability of conviction, thereby preventing the rigors of a prolonged and futile trial amounting to an abuse of the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording prosecution evidence?
  • Whether a trial court is bound to consider police inquiry reports and statements disclaiming possession when deciding an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 apply where the accused has no possession or claim over the disputed property?
  • When can the High Court interfere with an interlocutory order refusing acquittal under its inherent powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Amir Khan & others Ali Gohar Khan vs Ali Gohar KhanSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Afzal-ur-Rehman alias Aatif son of Jalil ur Rehman, Presently confined in Central Jail, Karachi vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailpolice encounterunlicensed firearmexplosives possessionprima facie casedeeper appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Afzal-ur-Rehman, who is facing charges related to an armed encounter with police, possession of unlicensed firearms, and explosives. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the allegations of a police encounter, recovery of weapons, and the nature of the offences charged. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. The Court reasoned that the prosecution established a prima facie case through the recovery of an unlicensed pistol and the positive ballistic report, alongside the recovery of hand grenades from co-accused persons. The Court emphasized that the applicant's contentions regarding false implication and prior illegal detention require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible during bail proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offences involve grave threats to law and order in Karachi, particularly regarding the possession of explosives. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  • Does the recovery of unlicensed firearms and explosives during a police encounter constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Can allegations of prior illegal detention be adjudicated during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzar vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-30Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Ahmed Khan---Complainant vs Director-General2015 CLD 57 · Environmental Tribunal · 2014-04-29
  private complaintenvironmental pollutionmandatory noticelist of witnessesacquittalenvironmental tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a private complaint filed before the Environmental Tribunal concerning alleged environmental pollution, hazardous waste, and air pollution caused by a poultry farm operating near a residential and agricultural area. The core legal questions relate to the mandatory requirement of issuing a thirty-day notice by an aggrieved person before taking cognizance under the relevant environmental legislation, and the legal consequences of failing to append a list of witnesses and gist of evidence with a private criminal complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Environmental Tribunal held that the complaint was not competent as the statutory notice was improperly issued through an advocate without lawful authority, and further that the failure to provide a list of witnesses and gist of evidence vitiated the proceedings, prejudicing the accused. Consequently, the tribunal accepted the application and acquitted the accused of the charges. The key principle laid down is that mandatory statutory prerequisites, including proper notice by the aggrieved person and the submission of a witness list with evidence summaries in private complaints, are strict legal requirements rather than mere technicalities, the absence of which warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legal notice of contravention and intention to file a complaint before the Environmental Tribunal be validly issued by an advocate on behalf of an aggrieved person?
  • Does the omission to provide a list of witnesses and gist of evidence with a private criminal complaint vitiate the trial?
  • Can a court invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon witnesses when neither a list of witnesses nor a gist of evidence was ever submitted by the complainant?
  • Whether the failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for filing a private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure warrants the acquittal of the accused under Section 265-K?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain through Attorney vs Government of Sindh through Chief2015 MLD 1688 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-24
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11 C.P.C.licence agreementlicensee rightslease vs licenceinjunction against evictionSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arose from an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff, who had entered into a one-year licence agreement with the Official Assignee to occupy a confiscated property, sought an injunction against eviction, renewal of the agreement, and recovery of maintenance expenses and security deposit. The core legal questions were whether a licensee has a cause of action or legal character under Sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act to maintain a suit for injunction or renewal, and whether expenses incurred voluntarily confer any right against eviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the defendant's application and rejected the plaint, holding that a licence merely creates a permissive right without transferring interest or granting exclusive possession. The Court established that a licensee cannot maintain a suit for declaration or injunction preventing revocation or eviction, and voluntarily incurred renovation expenses do not create a cause of action, though security deposits remain refundable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a licensee can maintain a suit for injunction or declaratory relief to prevent eviction or compel renewal of a licence agreement?
  • What are the key legal distinctions between a lease and a licence regarding transfer of interest and exclusive possession?
  • Does a licensee acquiring voluntary renovation expenses on a property gain a legal cause of action to prevent the revocation of a licence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Butt and others vs The State and another2015 MLD 165 · Lahore High Court · 2013-07-17
  pre-arrest bailbail-before-arrestgeneralized allegationsfurther probemob attackcriminal procedurefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons booked under sections 324, 337-A(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of a criminal case registered at Police Station Pahrianwali, District Mandi Bahauddin. Four of the petitioners failed to appear and their petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. For the remaining nine petitioners in attendance, the core legal question was whether they were entitled to pre-arrest bail given that generalized allegations of firing were leveled against a large mob without specific roles attributed to them, and several co-accused had been declared innocent or merely present empty-handed during the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioners called for further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the number of injuries did not commensurate with the number of accused and generalized allegations ingrained suspicion of false involvement. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to surety bonds, laying down that where specific roles are absent and generalized allegations exist amidst a large mob, further probe is warranted, rendering recovery requirements secondary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused face generalized and collective allegations of firing as part of a large mob without specific roles attributed to them?
  • Does a case call for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the number of injuries on the injured persons does not commensurate with the large number of accused nominated?
  • Does the requirement of the accused by the police for the recovery of crime weapons lose relevance when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further probe?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Afshi Ibrahim vs District Government, Khanewal through District2015 PLC (C.S.) 646 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-15
  educator recruitmentPunjab Ombudsmanmaladministrationrepresentation to Governorconstitutional petitionappointment letter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court seeking implementation of an order passed by the Punjab Ombudsman, which directed the respondent authorities to issue her an appointment letter as an educator based on the Recruitment Policy, 2012. The petitioner had applied for the post of educator in District Khanewal under a prior merit list, and despite vacancies remaining and the new policy mandating the appointment of next-in-merit candidates, the respondents refused to appoint her. The Punjab Ombudsman ruled in her favour, finding maladministration, and subsequent representations and review attempts by the respondents before the Governor of the Punjab were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the respondents were bound to comply with the Recruitment Policy, 2012 and the binding orders of the Punjab Ombudsman. The Court held that the respondents unlawfully withheld the appointment and undermined statutory authorities, thereby violating the rule of law. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner forthwith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 provides for a review of an order passed by the Governor under section 32 of the Act?
  • Does the Recruitment Policy, 2012 require left-over and unfilled educator posts to be offered to next-in-merit candidates from previous merit lists?
  • Can authorities refuse to implement binding orders of the Punjab Ombudsman after the dismissal of their representation before the Governor?
  Read full judgment →
• Afridi Khan vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-04Read full judgment →
• AdnanAbid vs MunafAttara and othersSindh High Court · -
  rejection of plaintprima facie caseprivity of contractlawful considerationpleadingsspecific performanceinterim injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendants from committing illegal acts, alienating, or creating third-party interest in respect of fifty commercial plots situated in Scheme 42, Karachi, and to direct them to perform their obligations under an alleged allotment and contract. The core legal questions concern whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, a valid contract with lawful consideration, and privity of contract, and whether contradictory stances in pleadings warrant rejection of the plaint. The court held that the plaintiff's shifting and contradictory stands regarding the payment of consideration and the absence of essential contractual elements, coupled with a failure to plead material facts properly, meant no prima facie case or valid contract existed. Consequently, the court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principles laid down include that a party cannot set up a new case outside its pleadings, that unpleaded or contradictory facts disentitle a party to equitable relief, and that the lack of a valid contract and consideration warrants immediate rejection of a suit at the initial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can set up a new case through a rejoinder that contradicts the initial pleadings regarding the mode of payment and contract formation?
  • Does the absence of a prima facie valid contract and lawful consideration warrant the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can evidence be looked into regarding facts that have not been specifically pleaded in the plaint in accordance with Order VI Rule 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Qureshi vs Capital Development Authority2015 C.L.R. 1240 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-31
  temporary injunctionofficial accommodationgovernment servantallotment rulescivil revisionpermanent workmantrespassercapital development authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, son of a retired government servant, sought to restrain the Capital Development Authority from evicting him from an official flat allotted to his father and claimed entitlement to regularization and allotment of the same accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules 2002 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The core legal question was whether a child of a retired government servant and subsequently regularized employee is entitled to indefinitely retain official accommodation of a higher category than their own entitlement. The Islamabad High Court held that daily-wage or work-charged service does not automatically confer the status of a Federal Government Servant under the Accommodation Allocation Rules 2002, and that occupants retaining higher-category accommodation beyond the permissible six-month post-retirement period become trespassers. The court dismissed the revision, affirming that children of retired servants cannot retain accommodations exceeding their personal entitlement category.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person appointed on daily wages or work-charged basis automatically become a Federal Government Servant eligible for official accommodation allotment without a formal regularization order?
  • Can the child of a retired government servant retain official accommodation of a higher category than their own entitlement after the expiry of the statutory six-month post-retirement period?
  • What constitutes a trespasser under the Accommodation Allocation Rules 2002 regarding the unauthorized retention of government or hired accommodation?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Hafeez vs The State & another.2015 LHC 6562 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-20
  post-arrest bailcyber crimehackingelectronic transactionsfraudulent air ticketsprohibitory clausetampering with evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 36/37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 and Sections 420/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged hacking of login IDs of travel agencies and fraudulent issuance of international air tickets using specialized software. The Lahore High Court examined whether the petitioner, an alleged technical mastermind and former employee of the software distributor, was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Court held that despite the offence potentially not falling within the prohibitory clause, exceptional circumstances warranted the refusal of bail, considering the serious and international nature of the cybercrime scam, the risk of evidence tampering, and the collection of substantive connecting evidence by the prosecution. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused in cases not falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if exceptional circumstances exist?
  • Whether an accused nominated with a specific role in a serious cybercrime scam involving international repercussions is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Is the risk of tampering with evidence and destroying leads to co-accused sufficient ground to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Tiwana and others vs Shaukat Ullah Khan Bangash2015 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-16
  specific performanceequitable relieftime of the essencediscretionary remedycontract lawbalance considerationconduct of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance regarding an agreement to sell executed in 1995. The core legal question was whether the respondent-purchaser was entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance despite failing to pay the balance consideration by the contractually stipulated deadline. The Supreme Court observed that the agreement explicitly set a cutoff date, making time of the essence. Furthermore, the respondent repeatedly failed to comply with court orders regarding the deposit of securities and allowed a bank guarantee to expire, leaving the balance unpaid for years. The Court held that specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, not a matter of right. Applying the maxim 'he who seeks equity must do equity,' the Court found the respondent's conduct disentitled him to relief. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored, and the appellants were directed to refund the initial part-payment.

  Read full judgment →
• Adil S/o Abdullah vs StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailrapezinamedical evidenceappreciation of evidencebail stagecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Adil, who is charged with offences under Sections 376, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of rape resulting in pregnancy. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail, given the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of DNA evidence, and the argument that the trial had not concluded within the previously directed timeframe. The Court held that the application for bail must be dismissed. The ratio of the decision is that the victim's testimony, which fully implicated the accused, was corroborated by medical evidence confirming pregnancy. The Court emphasized that the offence is of a serious nature and that the contentions raised by the defence required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, and that the trial court had made sufficient efforts to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the failure to conclude a trial within a previously directed timeframe automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can bail be granted where there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Muneer, etc vs S.H.O., P.S. Saddar, Chakwal, etc2015 KLR Criminal Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-05Read full judgment →
• Adeel and Etisam vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-10
  kidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtretracted confessioncriminal conspiracyelopementcircumstantial evidencedelayed statementpolice remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom under Sections 365-A, 120-B, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of abduction for ransom beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the defense's version of a consensual elopement was more plausible. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant evidentiary gaps, including the lack of corroborative evidence, delayed recording of witness statements, and the unreliability of the retracted judicial confessions. The court emphasized that when two versions exist, the one favoring the accused must be accepted if reasonable doubt persists. Furthermore, the court found that the investigation was tainted by dishonesty and external influence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, dismissing the complainant's revision petitions for sentence enhancement and the appeal against the co-accused's acquittal. The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and that delayed statements without explanation are fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed recording of a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a plausible explanation render the prosecution's case fatal?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession be used as substantive evidence for conviction if it is not proven to be voluntary and true?
  • When two conflicting versions of an event are presented, what is the legal obligation of the court regarding the doctrine of juxtaposition?
  • Is a report by a handwriting expert admissible as evidence if the expert is not produced in court for cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector vs Messrs Silver Corporation2015 PTD 925, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 917 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs vs K.S. Sulemanji Esmailji and Sons2015 PTD 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Adam vs Mst. Abida and 2 others2015 PLD Balochistan 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-23Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-03Read full judgment →
• Acro Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Lahore vs C.I.R., Special Zone-2015 PTD (Trib.) 428 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-03-28
  sales tax registrationsuspension of registrationzero-rated sectorsactive taxpayer listtaxpayer liabilityS.R.O. 1125(I)/2011wholesale stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the suspension of the taxpayer's sales tax registration by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, Special Zone, Multan, under Section 21(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the suspension was justified given that the taxpayer had complied with the relevant S.R.O. 1125(I)/2011, and whether the taxpayer could be held responsible for the subsequent status of its buyers. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that the suspension order was unjustified and annulled it. The Tribunal found that the taxpayer had correctly applied the zero-rated status for supplies to registered persons in the five specified sectors up to the wholesale stage, as permitted by S.R.O. 1125(I)/2011. Furthermore, the Tribunal established the principle that a taxpayer cannot be held responsible for the acts or subsequent status changes of its buyers, noting that the buyers were active taxpayers on the FBR portal at the time of the transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no mechanism under the law for a supplier to foresee or control the subsequent activities of its buyers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a taxpayer be held responsible for the subsequent tax status of its buyers under the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Is the suspension of sales tax registration justified when a taxpayer has complied with the conditions of S.R.O. 1125(I)/2011?
  • Does the status of a buyer at the time of supply determine the applicability of zero-rating under S.R.O. 1125(I)/2011?
  Read full judgment →
• Accountant General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Abdul Ali2015 MLD 157 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-20Read full judgment →
• (1) Abubakar and (2) Muhammad Ishaq, vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abu Al Bayan Muhammad Faisal and anothers vs Ch. Muhammad Riaz2015 YLR 2045 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abrar Sheikh vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 671 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmed vs State and 3 others2015 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 324 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-04-28
  murderQisaslife imprisonmentocular evidencemedical evidencesifting grain from chaffconcurrent findingsreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which commuted the appellant's death sentence (awarded as Qisas by the trial court) to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302(b) of the Azad Penal Code, while dismissing the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The appellant challenged his conviction, pointing out discrepancies between the ocular evidence and medical reports, the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence, and the lack of firearm expert corroboration. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed unless there is a gross misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Court ruled that direct ocular evidence of a broad daylight occurrence overrides minor discrepancies in medical or circumstantial evidence, and that the principle of sifting grain from the chaff allows for the conviction of the principal accused while acquitting others against whom no specific injury is attributed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir depart from its consistent practice and re-appraise evidence in the face of concurrent findings of the courts below?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same ocular evidence that was disbelieved to acquit co-accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does a minor discrepancy between direct ocular evidence and medical or firearm expert reports render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can the exact angle of fire be used to discredit direct ocular evidence when the victim and the accused are live persons capable of movement during an incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ullah vs Mst. Bibi Naseem and another2015 YLR 1646 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-03Read full judgment →
• Abid Saeed through son/Attorney vs Director-General, National2015 P Cr. L J 1732 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-13
  constitutional petitionquashment of proceedingspost-arrest bailproclaimed offenderfugitive from lawcorruption and corrupt practicesalternative remedyNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking bail, the quashment of proceedings in Reference No. 35 of 2007, and the declaration of process as illegal, arising from allegations of corruption, fraud, cheating, and misappropriation of funds through a fake bank account under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 when an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 existed, and the entitlement to post-arrest bail of an accused who was a proclaimed offender and a fugitive from law. The Court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable for seeking quashment since the petitioner failed to exhaust the efficacious alternate remedy available before the trial court, and further held that a fugitive from law disentitles themselves from the concession of bail under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The key principles laid down are that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked bypassing alternative statutory remedies without extraordinary circumstances, and that a proclaimed offender who has thwarted the trial process cannot be rewarded with bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained for quashment of a reference when an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is available?
  • Does a fugitive from law and courts lose the normal right to be granted bail?
  • Whether an accused declared as a proclaimed offender under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the conduct of an accused in evading arrest and thwarting the trial process bring them within the mischief of Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs Gul Za an Khan Abbasi and 4 others2015 C.L.R 1154 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Nawab and othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Judge Family Court, etc.2015 LHC 3612 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain alias Novaiz and anothers vs State, etc.2015 LHC 1636, PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 410 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-09
  pre-arrest bailcross-versiontentative assessmentcommon intentioncriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-A(i), 324, 148, 149, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that no specific role was attributed to the petitioners, only a joint role of firing. Furthermore, the existence of a cross-version, the declaration of innocence of co-accused by the Investigating Officer, and the fact that other co-accused had already been granted bail, suggested potential exaggeration by the complainant. The Court emphasized that the determination of common intention and the veracity of the competing versions are matters for the trial court after evidence is recorded, and that the petitioners' previous non-convict status and cooperation with the investigation supported the confirmation of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the Investigating Officer has declared co-accused innocent?
  • Is the determination of common intention a matter to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court after evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain alias Novaiz and another vs The State etc.2015 LHC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-09
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestcross-versiontentative assessmentcommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.146/14 registered under sections 337F(i), 337F(ii), 337A(i), 324, 148, 149, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mela, District Sargodha. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail where no specific role is attributed, a cross-version exists, and co-accused have been declared innocent or granted bail. The court held that the tentative assessment reveals a case of two competing versions, exaggeration by the complainant, and possible false implication by widening the net, thereby confirming the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where no specific role is attributed, co-accused have been found innocent during investigation, and a cross-version exists, the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail, as further incarceration or custodial interrogation solely for recovery serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when only a joint role of firing is attributed to the petitioners without any specific role?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version and the exoneration of co-accused by the investigating officer justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be remanded to police custody solely for the purpose of effecting recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Associated Agencies International Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs Areva, etc.2015 IHC 4 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-28Read full judgment →
• Abid Associated Agencies International (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Areva2015 MLD 1646 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-23
  arbitration agreementstay of proceedingsforeign arbitral awardsarbitration clausecommercial contractinternational arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves an application under Section 4 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, seeking to stay a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, who were parties to an agency agreement containing an arbitration clause. The core legal question was whether the court should stay the suit proceedings in favor of arbitration, specifically considering whether the arbitration agreement was 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed' under Section 4(2) of the Act. The Court held that the application should be allowed and the suit stayed. The Court clarified that the 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed' exception applies to the arbitration agreement itself, not the underlying contract. Since the arbitration clause remained valid and the disputes fell within its scope, the court lacked discretion to refuse the stay. The Court emphasized that arbitration clauses must be honored, especially in international commercial contracts, to maintain the sanctity of agreements and the international image of the country.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exception of 'null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed' under Section 4(2) of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 apply to the underlying contract or the arbitration agreement itself?
  • Does a court have discretion to refuse an application to stay proceedings under Section 4 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 if the arbitration agreement is valid?
  • Can a party that has previously participated in arbitration proceedings later claim that the underlying agreement is incapable of performance to avoid a stay of suit proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ashraf Waris Ali vs The State and another The State2015 LHC 7998 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-25
  narcotic substancesrecovery of charaschemical analysisburden of proofcriminal appealsafe custody of samples
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of charas. The prosecution case was built upon a police raid conducted pursuant to spy information, during which appellants and co-accused were apprehended and heavy quantities of charas were recovered from their personal searches. The core legal questions addressed by the court relate to the sufficiency of sending a small sample (10 grams) for chemical analysis from the recovered bulk narcotic substance, the effect of delay in dispatching samples to the chemical examiner, and whether the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of proof to shift the onus onto the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and corroborated testimonies of police witnesses, that sending a representative sample is legally sufficient under the statute, and that procedural rules regarding the dispatch of samples are directory rather than mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sending only a small sample of the recovered narcotic substance for chemical analysis satisfies the requirements of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a delay in sending sample parcels to the Chemical Examiner prove fatal to the prosecution case?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Are the rules regulating the sending of parcels to the Chemical Examiner under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts Rules, 2001) mandatory or directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs The State and 4 others2015 YLR 685 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-15
  inherent powersSection 561-A CrPCdisputed questions of factmatrimonial disputeabuse of processcriminal procedureHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a direction from the High Court to the police to evict a woman from the petitioner's residence. The petitioner alleged that the respondent refused to leave his house and threatened him with false criminal cases following a failed marriage proposal. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A could be invoked to resolve a private family dispute and order the eviction of an individual from a private property. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the inherent powers under Section 561-A are extraordinary and intended to prevent the abuse of court processes or secure the ends of justice, not to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact that require the recording of evidence. The Court established that such powers cannot be exercised when the matter involves complex matrimonial or family disputes, which are more appropriately addressed by a trial court having competent jurisdiction, especially when the alleged wrong is not clearly established as a serious criminal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to resolve private family or matrimonial disputes?
  • Is the High Court the appropriate forum to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of any court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs Messrs Bazar-E-Faisal Builders and Developers through Azam Hussain and 2 others2015 CLC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-23
  restoration of possessionSection 9 Specific Relief ActdispossessionPartnership Act Section 69unregistered firmconstitutional petitionconcurrent findingspower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged concurrent judgments of the trial court and the revisional court decreeing a suit for restoration of possession instituted under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 due to non-registration, filed by an unauthorized person, and that the subject flat did not exist. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 69 of the Partnership Act only bars suits enforcing contractual rights, not possessory actions against tortious dispossession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. It further reaffirmed that Section 9 focuses purely on prompt restoration of possession following unlawful dispossession without consent within six months, without determining questions of title. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent gross illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 apply to a suit for restoration of possession filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 by an unregistered entity?
  • What essential ingredients must a plaintiff establish to succeed in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Can a court determine questions of title or proprietary rights in proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abeera Saeed vs Etc.s2015 NLR Civil 499 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-09-11Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar Asghar and Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, MEMBERSMian2015 PLC (C.S.) 758, 2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 79 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2014-10-17
  judicial accountabilityremoval from servicecorruption chargesAnnual Confidential Reportmisconductsubordinate judiciaryservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of two service appeals filed by a judicial officer against the rejection of his representation for the expunction of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report and against his subsequent removal from service. The core legal questions involve whether the charges of corruption, misconduct, and abuse of authority were established against the appellant during the regular inquiry, and whether the adverse remarks and removal order were sustainable in law. The Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal held that the charges of obtaining illegal gratification and getting his official residence renovated through a litigant were duly proven through reliable ocular and documentary evidence, and that the appellant maintained a persistent reputation of corruption. The Tribunal concluded that judgeship demands the highest standards of integrity and conduct, and dismissed both appeals, affirming the penalty of removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judicial officer can be removed from service on charges of corruption and obtaining illegal gratification from a litigant established through a regular inquiry?
  • Does maintaining close relations with a litigant and having official accommodation renovated at their expense constitute misconduct warranting major penalties?
  • Whether adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report assessing an officer as corrupt and below average can be sustained when supported by material evidence?
  • Is the supervision of the work and conduct of judicial officers by the High Court protected under the constitutional framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman. vs Sabir Hussain etc.2015 LHC 2953 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman alias Malang vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Khan and others vs Abdul Qayyum and others2015 YLR 727 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-22Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-12Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State2015 YLR 924 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-29
  right to legal representationburden of proofremand of caseprocedural irregularitycriminal appealfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi East, in a case registered under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The appellant contended that the trial court erroneously placed the burden of proof on the accused to establish his innocence and failed to ensure the accused was represented by legal counsel, noting that the accused had to cross-examine witnesses himself without any record indicating he waived his right to counsel. Furthermore, it was highlighted that in a related main case concerning the same incident, the accused had been acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court observed the procedural irregularity regarding the lack of legal representation and the burden of proof. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Court directed that the accused be provided an opportunity to be defended by counsel, with the trial court recalling witnesses for cross-examination if necessary, while maintaining the accused's bail status subject to furnishing fresh surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court err by placing the burden of proof on an accused to establish his innocence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable where the record fails to show the accused was given an opportunity to be represented by a legal practitioner?
  • Can a case be remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision if the accused was denied the right to legal counsel during the initial trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 624 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Nasir Irnran vs The State The State2015 LHC 454 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-13
  qatl-i-amddiyatcompensationright of self-defensecriminal appealcriminal revisionsentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with Diyat, arising out of an incident where the deceased was killed when the complainant party approached the appellant's Dera. The core legal questions involved whether the imposition of Diyat was lawful under Section 302(c) PPC and whether compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be awarded by the appellate court. The Lahore High Court held that Diyat cannot be imposed under Section 302(c) PPC as it is not prescribed under that provision, setting aside that part of the sentence, but maintained the conviction and ten years rigorous imprisonment while additionally awarding compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a penalty can only be imposed if explicitly prescribed for that specific offense, and appellate courts possess the power to award compensation under Section 544-A CrPC if omitted by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the penalty of Diyat be lawfully imposed for a conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an appellate or revisional court empowered to award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court failed to do so?
  • Does the exercise of the right of self-defense under Sections 100 and 102 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 mitigate an offense of murder to Qatl-i-Amd under Section 302(c)?
  • Whether compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory upon conviction for an offense causing death or injury unless specific reasons for refusal are recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Haroon vs VTH Additional District Judge, Karachi South2015 PLD Sindh 464 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-06Read full judgment →