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.

• Abdullah Hanjrah vs Province of Sindh & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Bhutto vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  control of narcotic substancesmalkhana misappropriationdouble jeopardyrecovery of narcoticsburden of proofcircumstantial evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (CNS), Shikarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, arising from the alleged misappropriation of contraband charas from a court record room ("Malkhana") where the appellant served as incharge. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, can be sustained without the recovery of narcotics from the accused's possession, and whether prosecuting and convicting the appellant for the same transaction after his acquittal by courts of competent jurisdiction for theft and misappropriation violates the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any recovery of narcotics from the appellant, that Section 9(c) requires possession or trafficking which was unproven, and that the appellant's prior acquittals for theft and misappropriation based on the same set of facts barred a subsequent conviction. The court laid down the principle that the presumption and burden-shifting provisions of Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, only apply after the prosecution has established the recovery of contraband beyond a shadow of doubt, and that no person can be vexed twice for the same offense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be sustained in the absence of any recovery of narcotics from the possession or pointation of the accused?
  • Does Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused?
  • Does prosecuting an accused under narcotics laws after his acquittal by courts of competent jurisdiction for theft and misappropriation arising from the same transaction violate the bar against double jeopardy under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a conviction be based on the same set of circumstantial evidence that has already been rejected by competent forums resulting in the acquittal of the accused of primary charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul, Razzaq vs Bagh Ali2015 PLJ Lahore 1151, 2015 MLD 1575 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid alias Wajid Pathan vs StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailunlicensed weaponfurther inquirypolice recoverycriminal procedurebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of the applicant for the possession of an unlicensed pistol, an offence under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, contending that the recovery was suspicious due to the absence of independent witnesses, that all prosecution witnesses were police officials, and that he had already been granted bail in the main case. The State opposed the application, citing the recovery of the weapon and the applicant's involvement in other criminal cases. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that he had been incarcerated since his arrest without the framing of a charge. The Court emphasized that the mere registration of other cases does not automatically disentitle an accused to bail. Furthermore, the Court observed that the likelihood of the maximum sentence being awarded was low in the circumstances, and that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly given the allegations of mala fides against the police.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused automatically disentitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Is the court required to consider the maximum sentence provided by a statute when deciding a bail application, or the sentence likely to be entailed by the specific facts of the case?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to a recovery of a weapon by police provide grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1718 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-14
  Qatl-i-Amdconfessional statementsudden provocationDiyatminor legal heirsnatural guardiandouble jeopardyenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from a conviction for double murder (Qatl-i-Amd). The appellant confessed to killing his wife and her paramour, claiming sudden provocation upon finding them in an objectionable condition. The trial court accepted the plea of sudden provocation for the paramour's death, sentencing the appellant under Section 302(c), but rejected it for the wife's death, imposing liability for Diyat to her minor legal heirs. The core legal question was whether a confessional statement, being the sole evidence, could be accepted in part (pick and choose) regarding the plea of sudden provocation, and whether a mother could compromise on behalf of minor heirs. The Court held that a confessional statement must be accepted in its totality. Since the provocation applied to both deaths, the trial court erred in distinguishing between them based on the weapon used. Furthermore, the mother was a competent natural guardian to compromise for her minor children. Consequently, the conviction for the wife's death was converted to Section 302(c), P.P.C., and the revision for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court accept a confessional statement in part while rejecting the remainder when it is the sole evidence against an accused?
  • Is a mother a competent natural guardian to enter into a compromise on behalf of her minor children in a murder case?
  • Does the use of different weapons in a single incident of double murder negate the plea of sudden provocation for one victim while accepting it for the other?
  • Does the enhancement of a sentence to death after the accused has already served the substantive imprisonment amount to double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 746 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-02
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausetentative assessmentstatutory delayattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 286 dated 07.03.2014 registered under Sections 337-F(iii), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahna, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the duration of his incarceration. The court held that since the injuries on the feet fell under Section 337-F(iii) carrying a maximum punishment of three years—thus not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—and the applicability of Section 324 required further determination by the trial court, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had been behind bars since 12.09.2014 with the trial not in sight, the continued incarceration of the petitioner was unjustified. The court laid down the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, keeping an accused in custody for an indefinite period is unwarranted, and bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an injury on a non-vital part of the body exclude the prima facie application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
  • Is indefinite incarceration justified when the challan has been submitted but the conclusion of the trial is not in sight?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Muhammad Nafeez through L.Rs. and 2 others2015 MLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Muhammad Nafees (Since Dead) his Legal Heirs and others2015 PLJ Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab and others vs Province of Punjab through District2015 YLR 2259 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Abdul Wahab etc vs Province of Punjab etc. Shameer2015 LHC 4419 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Muhammad Hanif, etc.2015 LHC 4016 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor through L.Rs. and others vs Muhammad Hanif through Al.2015 C.L.R. 1317, 2015 LHC 4016, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1017, 2015 YLR 2202 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-19
  specific performancelis pendenscivil revisionlocus standitransferee pendente liteassignment of claimCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell. The petitioner, having purchased the disputed land from a third party during the pendency of the original litigation, sought to contest the suit despite never having been impleaded as a party in the trial or appellate courts. The core legal question was whether a transferee pendente lite, who failed to seek impleadment during the proceedings, possesses the locus standi to file a civil revision petition. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the standing to maintain the revision. Relying on the doctrine of lis pendens and the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court ruled that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree passed against the transferor if they fail to apply for substitution or impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 or Order I Rule 10. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming that a stranger to the litigation cannot bypass the procedural requirements to challenge a final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transferee pendente lite who was not a party to the suit or appeal file a civil revision petition?
  • Is a transferee pendente lite bound by a decree passed against the transferor if they failed to apply for impleadment during the proceedings?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens preclude a transferee pendente lite from challenging a decree if they were not a party to the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Muhammad Hanif, etc2015 C.L.R. 1317 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar. vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc.2015 LHC 5417 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd and 4 others2015 CLD 1338 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailkidnapping for ransomdelay in FIRvicarious liabilityAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of a post-arrest bail application filed by applicant Abdul Sattar in Crime No. 40 of 2012, registered under Sections 365-A and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The case involves the alleged abduction for ransom and subsequent murder of the complainant's father. The applicant argued that there was an unexplained delay of over two years in lodging the FIR and that no specific role was attributed to him. The High Court rejected these contentions, holding that in kidnapping for ransom cases, families often delay reporting out of fear for the victim's life, making such delay natural. Furthermore, the court established that where an applicant is alleged to be part of an abducting gang, specific individual roles or facilitator statuses are immaterial as all members are equally liable. Finding prima facie evidence connecting the applicant to the heinous crime, the High Court dismissed the post-arrest bail application while directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution case in offences involving abduction or kidnapping for ransom?
  • Whether the absence of a specific attributed role entitles an accused alleged to be part of an abducting gang to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State and another2015 LHC 6932 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-26
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionunexplained delay in FIRrule of consistencytentative assessmentbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 153/15 registered under Sections 337A(i), 337F(i), 337F(v), 337L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the presence of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a counter-version with medico-legal certificates, and the rule of consistency. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained four-day delay, the existence of a cross-version establishing injuries on the petitioner's side, and the grant of bail to a co-accused attributed a similar role rendered the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. The Court laid down that where a cross-version exists and the complainant has allegedly suppressed injuries sustained by the opposing party, along with the applicability of Section 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the fact that recovery after a lapse of time is doubtful, pre-arrest bail is rightly confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR make the complainant's case doubtful for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the existence of a cross-version and suppressed injuries of the accused party justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused in a cross-case attributed a similar injury has already been granted bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail justified when the investigation is complete and recovery of the weapon has lost its relevancy due to passage of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar through General Attorney vs Zohra Bibi and others2015 YLR 1964 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan Durrani and others vs Province of Balochistan2015 PLC (C.S.) 489 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-30
  contractual employmentregularization of servicesad hoc appointmentvested rightpublic service commissionconstitutional petitionservice rulesmerit-based recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by contract-based prosecutors seeking the regularization of their services and challenging the recommendations of a government-constituted committee that advised against such regularization, instead proposing that the posts be filled through the Balochistan Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as contract employees, possessed a vested right to be regularized in government service based on prior departmental summaries or political incentives. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that contract or ad hoc appointments do not confer any vested right to permanent absorption. The Court affirmed that public appointments must strictly adhere to established legal procedures, including the advertisement of posts and competitive examination. The judgment established that the regularization of irregular appointments is contrary to law and that the petitioners, having accepted the terms of their temporary contracts, were estopped from claiming permanent status. The Court emphasized that the continuation of service does not ipso facto convert temporary employment into permanent status, and that the committee's recommendation to follow the prescribed recruitment process was legally sound and consistent with the principles of equality and merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract or ad hoc appointment in government service confer a vested right to regularization?
  • Can the government regularize contract employees without adhering to prescribed recruitment procedures and competitive examinations?
  • Does the mere continuation of service for a temporary employee convert their appointment into a permanent one?
  • Are employees who accept the terms of a temporary contract estopped from claiming permanent status?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 2 others vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 22015 MLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Shaukat Ali and another2015 PLJ Lahore 960 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-04
  civil revisionspecific performanceagreement to sellunilateral agreementconsensus ad idemoffer and acceptancesigned agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent dismissal of a suit for declaration and specific performance of an agreement to sell by the courts below. The core legal question concerns the enforceability of an agreement to sell that was not signed by the vendee and lacked proof of execution through marginal witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that a unilateral document not signed by both contracting parties, in the absence of mutual assent or consensus ad idem, does not constitute a valid contract and cannot be specifically enforced. The key principle laid down is that an agreement to sell immovable property is a contract requiring offer, acceptance, and execution by both parties, and a unilateral, unsigned agreement denied by the contesting defendant is void of legal effect and unamenable to specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell not signed by the vendee is enforceable in a suit for specific performance?
  • Does a unilateral document lacking the signatures of both contracting parties constitute a valid contract under the law?
  • Is an admission made by a co-defendant binding on other defendants in a suit concerning the validity of an agreement to sell?
  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding concurrent findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami Soomro D.Masroor Ahmed Zai Fasihuddin Khan Engr.AtiqueSindh High Court · -
  tenure postcompetitive recruitmentlegitimate expectationcontractual employmentjudicial review of policyadditional chargeSindh Education Boards
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as Chairmen, Secretaries, and Controllers of Examinations in various Sindh Education Boards, challenged newspaper advertisements inviting applications for their respective posts. They contended that they held legitimate expectations to complete their fixed tenures and that, under the Sindh Boards of Education Employees Service Rules, 2013, these positions should be filled by promotion rather than direct induction. The core legal question was whether the Controlling Authority could initiate a competitive, merit-based recruitment process for these posts. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Controlling Authority possesses the power to initiate a transparent selection process to ensure meritocracy. The Court found that the 2013 Rules lacked statutory backing and could not override the parent Ordinances. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual appointees and those holding additional charges possess no vested right to permanency or to prevent the implementation of a fair, competitive recruitment policy. The judgment establishes that courts will not interfere with executive policy decisions aimed at transparency unless they are proven mala fide, and that specific performance of contractual employment cannot be enforced through constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Controlling Authority initiate a competitive recruitment process for posts previously filled without one?
  • Does a contractual appointee to a tenure post have a vested right to complete their term despite a new policy for competitive selection?
  • Can the specific performance of a contract of employment be enforced through a constitutional petition?
  • Do non-statutory service rules override the express provisions of a parent Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Khan and 5 others vs Jamshed and 7 others2015 MLD 1642 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 808 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  post-arrest bailkidnapping for ransomAnti-Terrorism Courtstatutory delayfourth proviso to Section 497non-bailable offenceheinous crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 2 of 2012 registered under Sections 302, 365, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending trial before the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta. The applicant sought bail primarily on the statutory ground of delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting continuous detention since March 2012 and trial delay attributable to prosecution defaults. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was nominated in a promptly lodged FIR for kidnapping a taxi driver for ransom and committing a gruesome murder. Relying on the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 21-D(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the Court ruled that persons accused of acts of terrorism punishable with death or life imprisonment are statutorily disentitled from receiving bail on the ground of statutory delay. Furthermore, offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 carrying punishment over three years are explicitly non-bailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused facing trial for an act of terrorism punishable with death or life imprisonment is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar statutory delay bail for offences involving kidnapping for ransom and gruesome murder?
  • What is the effect of Section 21-D(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 on bail applications where an offence under the Act is punishable with death or imprisonment exceeding three years?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul REHMANs vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-04-03
  leave to appealreappraisal of evidenceidentification of accusedFirst Information Reportcriminal convictionrecovery of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction where the petitioners challenged the evidentiary basis of their involvement in the alleged crime. The core legal questions addressed were whether the identification of the accused based on generic physical descriptions in the First Information Report (FIR) is sufficient to establish culpability, and whether the recovery of a motorcycle, without a specific identifying number mentioned in the FIR, provides a valid link to the crime. The Supreme Court observed that the lack of specific identification in the FIR and the absence of a clear explanation regarding how the petitioners were initially suspected of the offense raised significant concerns regarding the justification of their arrest, trial, and subsequent conviction. Consequently, the Court held that these contentions merit a thorough examination and reappraisal of the evidence. The Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the conviction could be sustained given the evidentiary deficiencies regarding the identity of the assailants and the connection of the recovered property to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does a generic physical description of assailants in an FIR constitute sufficient evidence to link an accused to a crime?
  • Can the recovery of an item, such as a motorcycle, serve as incriminating evidence if the item was not specifically identified or described in the FIR?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain the basis for suspecting and arresting the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-02
  post-arrest bailconspiracyabetmentfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Kahuta. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to be a conspirator but was not present at the scene of the crime and did not actively participate in the commission of the offence, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not present at the spot and his physical custody was no longer required for investigation, he was entitled to bail. The judgment established the principle that a conspirator or abettor not present at the scene of the crime stands on a lower footing than an accused who is present and instigating the crime, and thus, should not be denied bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person alleged to be a conspirator but not present at the scene of the crime is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the case of a conspirator not present at the crime scene stand on a lower footing than an accused present at the scene instigating the crime?
  • When does a case against an accused fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State etc.2015 LHC 338 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-02
  post-arrest bailconspiracyabetmentfurther inquiryvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Abdul Rehman seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 337 dated 14.08.2014, registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kahuta, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question concerns the entitlement to post-arrest bail of an accused charged with conspiracy and abetment who was not present at the scene of the crime. The court held that the case of an alleged conspirator or abettor not present at the spot stands on a lower footing than that of an accused present at the scene, and that false implication in cases of conspiracy between inimical parties is a strong possibility. The court determined that the petitioner's case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that investigation was finalized and physical custody was no longer required. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with conspiracy and abetment who was not present at the crime scene is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the case of a conspirator not present at the spot stand on a lower footing than an instigator present at the spot?
  • When can a case be considered one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Syed Arif Hussain Shah and 5 others2015 C.L.R. 1128 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-05-22
  suit for possessionlaw of limitationpart performanceappellate courtdeclaratory suitland disputecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for declaration and possession of land filed by the respondents against the appellant. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, citing lack of proof and limitation, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. The core legal question was whether a suit for possession by a landowner is barred by limitation and whether the appellant could retain possession of disputed land under the doctrine of part performance. The High Court held that no limitation period runs against a lawful owner seeking possession of their property from an aggressor, thereby rejecting the trial court's finding on limitation. Regarding the merits, the Court found that while the appellant was entitled to retain possession of land acquired through valid transactions, including an agreement to sell and a decree, they had no legal right to the remaining disputed land. The Court affirmed the appellate judgment, establishing that a suit for possession based on title is not subject to the limitation periods applicable to other declaratory suits, and that appellate courts must ensure judgments address all issues under the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for possession of immovable property by a lawful owner subject to a limitation period?
  • Can an appellate court decide a case based on available evidence under Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the trial court failed to address all issues?
  • Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protect the possession of land beyond the specific area covered by the agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 251 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-13
  Pre-arrest bailCross-versionMedical re-examinationInjuriesMala fide intentionTwo versionsPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 337-F(iii), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given conflicting versions of the incident and the injured party's non-cooperation with a medical re-examination. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that if an injured person avoids appearing before a medical board for re-examination, the benefit of such non-appearance extends to the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that where there are two versions of an incident, and a cross-version has been ordered to be recorded, the involvement of the accused may prima facie appear to be an outcome of mala fide intention. The trial court is the proper forum to determine which party was the aggressor.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of an injured party avoiding appearance before a medical board for re-examination on an accused's bail application?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted in a case where there are two conflicting versions of the incident and a cross-version has been ordered?
  • Does prima facie mala fide intention on the part of the complainant justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2015 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-02
  review applicationscope of reviewtransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application arises from an order dismissing a constitutional petition that sought implementation of a mutual transfer between two government servants and challenged junior officer appointments. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the review application under civil procedure, the scope of review, and whether matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Balochistan High Court held that the review application failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient cause under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that review is not an appeal or rehearing mechanism. Furthermore, the court held that grievances regarding transfer and posting pertain to terms and conditions of service, ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What are the grounds for maintaining a review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Are grievances regarding the transfer and posting of civil servants barred from High Court jurisdiction by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can contempt proceedings be initiated within the scope of a review application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Chairman M/s Mari Gas Co Ltd and 2 others2015 MLD 61 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Kehtran vs The State2015 P Cr.L J 852 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-03
  post-arrest bailillicit arms and ammunitionexplosive substancesprohibitory clauseinconsistent pleastentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises out of FIR No. 6 of 2014 registered at Police Station Barkhan under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following the recovery of a massive cache of arms, ammunition, and explosives from a bungalow during a raid. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given his denial of ownership of the premises, alleged political victimization, and the nature of the offences charged. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding prima facie reasonable grounds connecting him to the recovery, his presence at the spot during the raid, and inconsistent pleas taken across multiple connected proceedings regarding the ownership of the property. The court laid down the principle that where huge quantities of illicit arms and explosives are recovered from premises linked to an accused who fails to offer a consistent or plausible defense, and where statements of witnesses and memo of search prima facie implicate him, the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and bail must be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when huge quantities of illicit arms and explosives are recovered from premises connected to him?
  • Does a plea of false implication due to political motives warrant further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prima facie evidence is available?
  • Can contradictory stances taken by an accused across multiple bail applications regarding the ownership of the place of recovery disentitle him from the grant of bail?
  • Whether offences under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2015 PLJ Lahore 716 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Boota vs The State etc.2015 LHC 6157 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-18
  post-arrest bailsuccessive bail applicationsupplementary challaninvestigation reportItlaf-e-Salahiyyat-i-udualibicriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a third application for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 337-H(ii), 336, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the withdrawal of a previous bail petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a supplementary challan placing him in column No. 2, despite having previously withdrawn a bail application after full arguments when the same material was available. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a fresh ground for bail. The Court observed that the supplementary challan relied on material already available during the previous bail application. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner was named in the FIR with a specific role, his participation was supported by eyewitnesses and an injured witness, and the injuries attributed to him fell under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court established that opinions of investigating officers regarding innocence do not override the statements of eyewitnesses and injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner file a successive bail application on grounds that were already available at the time of the withdrawal of a previous bail petition?
  • Does an investigating officer's opinion of innocence in a supplementary challan override the statements of eyewitnesses and injured witnesses?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the trial is near conclusion and the accused is named in the FIR with a specific role?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State etc.2015 LHC 1633 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryevidentiary contradictionsdelayed FIRrape allegationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 737/14, registered under Section 496-A and Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Nankana Sahib. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest, given the evidentiary inconsistencies and the stage of the investigation. The Court observed a twenty-nine-day unexplained delay in the FIR's registration and noted significant contradictions between the alleged abductee's statements recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the abductee did not implicate the petitioner in the act of rape, and the prosecution's narrative appeared doubtful. The Court held that the petitioner's case falls under the category of further inquiry, as contemplated by Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the heinousness of an offense alone is insufficient to deny bail, especially when the accused is a previous non-convict and the investigation is complete, rendering further incarceration unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for granting bail?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offense?
  • When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Lahore Development Authority, etc2015 LHC 4487, 2015 C.L.R. 1340 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Development2015 LHC 4487 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Bagh Ali2015 PLJ Lahore 1151 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-03
  Promissory NoteLimitation ActNegotiable InstrumentsRecovery SuitStatutory PresumptionCivil Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Vehari, which decreed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 40,500 based on a Promissory Note. The appellant contended that the Promissory Note was defective due to an endorsement specifying a future payment date, arguing that the suit was barred by the limitation period under Article 73 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether the suit was time-barred and whether the Promissory Note was validly executed. The Court held that the suit was within the limitation period, affirming that the Promissory Note contained an unconditional undertaking to pay at a fixed future time, consistent with the definition provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court further held that the appellant, having taken a stance of total denial, failed to rebut the statutory presumptions attached to the negotiable instrument under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree was upheld as legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does a promissory note containing a fixed future date for payment satisfy the definition of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Can a defendant who denies the execution of a promissory note simultaneously challenge its specific contents?
  • What is the effect of the statutory presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 on a defendant who fails to rebut them?
  • Does the inclusion of a fixed future date for payment in a promissory note trigger the limitation period under Article 72 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs 1st Additional Sessions Judge and another2015 YLR 2595 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-30
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausehurtTazirArshcounter-casefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the dismissal of the applicant's bail plea by the trial court in a case involving charges under sections 324, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the nature of the injuries and the applicability of Tazir. The Court held that the primary punishment for hurt under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is Arsh or Daman, and Tazir is an additional, optional punishment applicable only under specific conditions defined in Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Since these conditions were not met at the bail stage, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the Court noted contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and the existence of a counter-case. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, and that cases involving further inquiry fall under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the punishment for hurt under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what conditions can Tazir be awarded as an additional punishment for hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Should bail be granted when there is a counter-version of the incident and the identity of the aggressor is in dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq through L.Rs. vs Nisar Ali through L.Rs. and others2015 CLC 696 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq Lashari and 3 others vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 3 others2015 YLR 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and 5 others vs Abdul Sattar and another2015 Civil Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 412 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-21
  post-arrest bailmatrimonial disputefurther inquiryprohibitory clausedelayed FIRattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Razzak, seeking post-arrest bail in crime No. 46 of 2014 registered under sections 324, 342, 506(2) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhittai Nagar. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the background of a matrimonial dispute, delayed FIR registration, lack of injuries, and absence of weapon recovery from the crime scene. The Sindh High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the FIR was registered shortly after a divorce was pronounced, no injuries were sustained, and no empty bullet casings were recovered. The court laid down the principle that where matrimonial animosity, delayed reporting, and absence of corroborative physical evidence create a tentative doubt regarding the applicability of penal provisions within the prohibitory clause, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an FIR is registered shortly after a matrimonial dispute and pronouncement of divorce?
  • Does the absence of firearm injuries and unrecovered empty casings from the crime scene make a case one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the submission of a challan and the fact that an accused is a government servant be considered grounds for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak Mohammad Ebrahim Mohammad Akram MohammadSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaque vs Investigating Officer of Crime No.185 of 2012, Police2015 YLR 1956 · Sindh High Court · 2012-11-19
  B class reportsummary reportIllegal Dispossession Actrestoration of possessionquashing of ordercriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant assailed an order passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate accepting a police summary report under 'B' class regarding an FIR registered under the directions of the Additional Sessions Judge following an alleged house trespass, theft, and issuance of threats. The applicant contended that the report was false, witness statements were ignored, and no directions were issued concerning his dispossession. Conversely, the State argued that possession of the subject property had already been restored to the complainant (Allah Bux) pursuant to an order passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, rendering the criminal allegations false and unsubstantiated. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was a detailed and speaking order covering all factual and legal aspects, and that no sufficient evidence of a cognizable offence existed against the respondents, noting that any grievance regarding dispossession from a different property could be pursued through the appropriate forum. The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate's order accepting a police summary report under 'B' class is maintainable when supported by reasons?
  • Does the execution of an order for restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act negate criminal proceedings arising from the same dispute?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when a party claims dispossession from a property different from the one addressed in restoration proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Government of the Punjab the rough Secretary (Food)Civil2015 C.L.R 1177 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Abbasi vs Jamil Ahmed Malik and 4 others2015 P.S.C. 843, 2015 YLR 1187 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-05-29
  pre-emption suitZar-e-Panjumright of prior purchasemandatory provisionsjudicial discretionvexatious litigationsettlement of issues
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption filed by the appellant, challenging the High Court’s refusal to allow the substitution of a cash deposit (Zar-e-Panjum) with a security bond. The core legal question concerns the scope of the trial court's discretion under Section 21 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (BK) to vary an order requiring the plaintiff to deposit one-fifth of the probable sale consideration. The Supreme Court held that while a trial court is empowered to vary its order regarding the mode of deposit—whether cash or security—this discretionary power is strictly limited to the period before the settlement of issues. The Court emphasized that the statutory requirement for such deposits serves as a vital safeguard against vexatious and mala fide litigation, ensuring the vendee is protected against frivolous proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court's refusal to alter the mode of deposit was legally sound, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for variation, and the mandatory nature of the statutory provisions must be strictly upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court vary an order requiring the deposit of one-fifth of the probable sale consideration in a pre-emption suit?
  • Is the power of a trial court to vary the mode of deposit in a pre-emption suit limited to the period before the settlement of issues?
  • Does the failure to deposit the required one-fifth of the probable sale consideration within the time fixed by the court result in the rejection of the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB, Balochistan2015 MLD 1572 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Dilkasha Begum and 6 others2015 MLD 238 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed and 2 others vs The State and another2015 LHC 8600 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-20
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionFIR delaytentative assessmentcustodial interrogationsuppression of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 234/15 registered under sections 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(v), 337L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version, unexplained delay in FIR registration, and the nature of the alleged injuries. The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of bail. It observed that the two-day delay in FIR registration, coupled with the existence of a cross-version where the complainant suppressed injuries caused to the petitioners, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners were previous non-convicts and the investigation was already complete, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary for recovery purposes. The key principle laid down is that in cases of cross-versions where the complainant suppresses the injuries of the accused, and where the investigation is complete, the accused are entitled to pre-arrest bail as the prosecution's narrative becomes suspect and custodial detention serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case entitle the accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and recovery of weapons is no longer relevant?
  • Is an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed & Ors. vs Abdul Ghani & Ors2015 SHC 11 · Sindh High Court · 2011-06-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem and another vs Ehsan and 15 others2015 C.L.R. 1140 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rafay Butt vs Additional District Judge and others2015 PLJ Lahore 384, 2015 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State and another2015 YLR 348 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-01
  criminal appealocular evidencedishonest improvementbenefit of doubtcorroborative evidenceidentification of accusedacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under sections 302, 324, 398, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged dacoity and murder incident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the culprits through ocular evidence, given the circumstances of the occurrence and the subsequent improvements made by witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the initial FIR did not name the accused, and witnesses subsequently made dishonest improvements to their statements to implicate the appellant, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that when ocular testimony is discarded as unreliable, corroborative evidence, such as recoveries, loses its substantive value and cannot independently sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and ordered his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of recovery evidence if the primary ocular testimony is discarded?
  • What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses on the reliability of their testimony?
  • Does the failure to name an accused in the initial FIR, despite the presence of witnesses, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan and 5, others2015 KLR Criminal Cases 274, 2015 PLJ Islamabad 178, 2015 P Cr. L J 1058 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-08
  death warrantAnti-Terrorism Courtterritorial jurisdictionexecution of death sentencelocus standiconstitutional petitionmoratorium on capital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter involves a writ petition and a criminal miscellaneous application seeking the setting aside and suspension of death warrants issued against condemned prisoners whose death sentences were upheld up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns whether the death warrant should be issued by the judge or court that originally passed the sentence or by the newly established Anti-Terrorism Court having current territorial jurisdiction over the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that under Section 381 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the currently established Anti-Terrorism Court possessing territorial jurisdiction is competent to issue the death warrant, and Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to require the original judge's involvement. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioners, being brothers of the condemned prisoners, lacked locus standi to maintain the petitions, and that no valid compromise existed with the legal heirs. The court laid down the principle that execution warrants in anti-terrorism cases are to be issued by the court exercising current territorial jurisdiction rather than strictly the original trial judge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the death warrant of a condemned prisoner is to be issued by the judge who originally passed the sentence or by the Anti-Terrorism Court having current territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the issuance of death warrants by Anti-Terrorism Courts?
  • Whether brothers of a condemned prisoner have the locus standi to file a constitutional petition challenging a death warrant?
  • Can a death warrant be suspended on the ground of a proposed compromise when the legal heirs state there is no compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan and 5 others2015 KLR Criminal Cases 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs D.P.O Etc.2015 LHC 4413 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Chairman, Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and another2015 PLJ Islamabad 202 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Chairman Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad and another2015 PLJ Islamabad 202, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 617 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-27
  access to justiceduty of careservice mattersconstitutional obligationextraordinary jurisdictionfundamental rightsfair trialCapital Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses numerous writ petitions filed by employees of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) concerning their service terms and conditions. The core legal question is whether the State and its controlled organizations have a constitutional and legal duty to provide an effective, inexpensive, and impartial forum for resolving service-related disputes for employees who are not civil servants and thus lack access to the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court held that the employer owes a duty of care to its employees, and the denial of an accessible, inexpensive forum constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, including access to justice, fair trial, and dignity, as guaranteed under Articles 9, 10-A, 14, and 25 of the Constitution. The Court established that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 is not an adequate remedy for such service disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the CDA to establish an independent forum for dispute resolution and ordered the Federal Government to initiate legislative measures to provide appropriate appellate forums for such employees, emphasizing the State's mandatory obligation to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer owe a legal duty of care to its employees to provide an effective and inexpensive forum for resolving service-related disputes?
  • Is the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution an adequate remedy for employees seeking redress for service-related grievances?
  • Does the failure of the State or its controlled organizations to provide an impartial forum for service disputes violate the fundamental right of access to justice?
  • Are statutory organizations under the Federal Government constitutionally obligated to establish independent tribunals for the resolution of their employees' service grievances?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Director General National Accountability2015 P Cr. L J 1614 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-24
  acquittal applicationalteration of chargecorruption and corrupt practicesconstitutional jurisdictiontrial court discretionprejudice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging an order of the trial court that dismissed his application for acquittal under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and simultaneously ordered the addition of Clauses (iv) and (v) of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 to the existing charge. The petitioner argued against the dismissal of the acquittal application and the alteration of the charge. The Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the acquittal application because the trial was ongoing, and premature evaluation of evidence would prejudice the case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court possesses the authority to alter or add to a charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, provided the alteration is read and explained to the accused. The Court emphasized that such amendments are permissible to ensure the charge accurately reflects the accusations, provided no prejudice or failure of justice occurs to the accused. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the impugned order was found legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court alter or add to a charge after it has been framed but before judgment is pronounced?
  • Is it appropriate for a trial court to evaluate the evidence in detail when deciding an application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the trial is still pending?
  • Does the addition of a new clause to a charge under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 constitute an illegality if the accused is given an opportunity to understand the amended charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and 8 others vs Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others2015 MLD 605 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30
  eviction applicationrelationship of landlord and tenantdisputed titlerent controller jurisdictionpending civil suitbona fide requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Judge-VII-cum-Rent Controller Quetta dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellants against the respondents in respect of a shop situated in Bombay Shopping Centre, Quetta. The core legal question revolves around whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, given that the title to the property is seriously disputed and a civil suit for declaration and possession is already pending adjudication between the parties before a competent civil court. The Balochistan High Court held that where the title of the applicant is shrouded in mystery and is actively under challenge in a pending civil suit, a Rent Controller is not competent to decide questions of title or record a finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant based on such disputed ownership. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the eviction application, laying down the principle that in the face of bona fide and substantial disputes regarding ownership pending before a civil court, the Rent Controller must refrain from adjudicating upon the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the parties must await the final outcome of the civil litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller decide a disputed question of title regarding the demised property?
  • Whether an eviction application is maintainable when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied and the applicant's title is sub judice before a civil court?
  • What is the proper course of action for a party seeking eviction when ownership of the property is shrouded in mystery and subject to pending civil litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-10
  criminal appealmurderocular accountidentificationabsconsionmedical evidencefirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in imprisonment for life for a murder committed through a firearm shot, along with a connected criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the identification of the accused during evening hours, the evidentiary value of absconsion, and the corroboration provided by medical evidence and recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that minor discrepancies in the statements of eye-witnesses do not shatter the prosecution case, that prompt reporting and mutual acquaintance negate mistaken identity, and that absconsion serves as a strong corroborative piece of evidence. The court dismissed both the appeal and the revision, affirming the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the testimony of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution case in a murder trial?
  • Can absconsion for a short period after the crime be considered as a strong corroborative piece of evidence against the accused?
  • Is the identification of an accused reliable when the occurrence takes place during evening hours between co-villagers well known to each other?
  • Whether medical evidence corroborating a single firearm entry is sufficient to support an ocular account in a murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs D.G. NAB & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealreasonable doubtchemical examiner reportrecovery proceedingsmandatory statutory provisionsindependent witnessesControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 248 kilograms of diazepam. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of alleged procedural lapses and evidentiary deficiencies. The Sindh High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses despite having prior spy information, violating the mandatory requirements of Sections 20 and 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court found the chemical examiner’s report unreliable, noting it lacked a scientific basis to confirm the substance as a narcotic. Material contradictions regarding the recovery, weighing, and chain of custody further undermined the prosecution's case. The Court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt arising from procedural or evidentiary failures must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case, where prior spy information was available, violate the mandatory provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the chemical examiner's report fails to scientifically establish the nature of the recovered substance?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the chain of custody and accurate weighing procedures for recovered narcotics to secure a conviction?
  • Does the benefit of reasonable doubt extend to an accused when the prosecution fails to produce the owner of the vehicle used in the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs The State2015 MLD 499 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-18
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlconscious possessionrule of consistencydirectory provisionsrecovery of contrabandprivate witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from the arrest of the applicant, who was apprehended while driving a truck containing 4650 kg of poppy straw. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, contending that the raiding party failed to associate private witnesses, that the complainant (a Soobedar) was unauthorized, and that the rule of consistency entitled him to bail as a co-accused had been granted relief. The core legal questions were whether the non-association of private witnesses and the rank of the complainant vitiated the prosecution case, and whether the rule of consistency applied. The Court held that the applicant was in conscious possession of the contraband as the driver. It ruled that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the requirement of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that procedural provisions regarding officer rank are directory, not mandatory. The Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the arguments and distinguishing the applicant's case from that of the co-accused, thereby denying bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotics case vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Are the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the rank of the investigating officer directory or mandatory?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where the evidence against co-accused persons is not identical?
  • Can conscious possession of contraband be inferred from the fact that an accused was driving the vehicle containing the illicit items?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Munaff vs The State Abdul Munaff2015 NLR Criminal 523 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07
  murderdeath sentence commutationocular evidencemitigating circumstancesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusforensic evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of Abdul Munaff for the murder of Navid Ahmad, registered under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the impact of partial acquittal of co-accused on the prosecution's case, and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the circumstances. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony and forensic evidence matching the weapon, the death sentence was excessive. The Court applied the principle that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not universally applicable, allowing the court to sift grain from chaff. Furthermore, citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that where mitigating circumstances exist—such as the failure to prove the alleged motive and the presence of only a single firearm injury—judicial caution dictates commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment to avoid potential miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused based on the same ocular evidence?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive?
  • Is the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' a binding rule of evidence in Pakistani criminal law?
  • Does the failure of the defense to produce evidence under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken the accused's position?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Munaff vs The State2015 YLR 2388 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Munaff vs State2015 LHC 2497, PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 536 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07
  murderdeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuseyewitness testimonyunproven motiveforensic ballistics reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant, Abdul Munaff, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to death, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution alleged that following a prior dispute over bus boarding, the appellant and co-accused attacked the deceased, with the appellant firing a fatal shot. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the proof of motive, and the quantum of sentence in light of mitigating circumstances and the partial acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that while the eyewitness testimony remained reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence despite the acquittal of co-accused, the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, leaving the immediate trigger uncertain. Consequently, the Court held that the unproven motive and the single firearm injury constituted mitigating circumstances warranting the commutation of the death sentence. The principle laid down is that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no universal application requiring courts to sift grain from chaff, and a single mitigating circumstance, such as an unproven motive, is sufficient to avoid the death penalty in favour of imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies universally in criminal trials in Pakistan?
  • Can an unproven motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the partial acquittal of co-accused render the testimony of eyewitnesses unreliable as to the remaining convicted appellant?
  • Whether a single firearm injury attributed to the accused constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance against the penalty of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs The State2015 YLR 235 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabsconsionmurdersuspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused Abdul Mateen in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, notwithstanding his previous absconsion and nomination on suspicion. The Sindh High Court held that where the prosecution admits there is no direct evidence or material connecting the accused to the crime beyond mere suspicion—and the case is identical to that of a co-accused already released on bail—mere absconsion alone is insufficient to deny bail when the merits warrant further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that absconsion by itself cannot serve as an absolute bar to the grant of bail when the prosecution's case rests entirely on uncorroborated suspicion without direct incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere absconsion of an accused operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail when direct evidence is lacking?
  • Can bail be granted on the rule of consistency when the case of the applicant is identical to that of a co-accused already enlarged on bail?
  • Is suspicion alone sufficient to deny post-arrest bail in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs Fazal Subhan and 2 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manaf vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 223 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2014-09-09
  criminal appealunlicensed weaponrecovery witnessmaterial contradictionbenefit of the doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 6-6-2014 passed by the Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an in default imprisonment term, following his acquittal on a murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around the legality and credibility of a weapons recovery allegedly effected from a premises neither owned nor resided in by the appellant, marred by material contradictions between prosecution witnesses. The court held that the contradictory evidence regarding the recovery from a third party's premises renders the prosecution's case highly doubtful, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions in witness statements regarding the recovery of incriminating articles from premises not under the control of the accused vitiate the conviction, warranting the extension of the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for possessing an unlicensed weapon can be sustained when the recovery is made from a premises neither owned nor resided in by the accused?
  • Does a material contradiction between the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of an article entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance stand on doubtful recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan and 32015 PLC (C.S.) 1114 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 2014-03-25
  civil servicetransfer and postingacting chargeservice tribunaladministrative discretiontenure of postingpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer from Panjgoor to Quetta, alleging it was an "immature transfer" made under political influence, contrary to established transfer policies and Supreme Court guidelines regarding tenure. The core legal question was whether the transfer order was arbitrary and illegal, or a valid exercise of administrative discretion. The Balochistan Service Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable on its merits. The Tribunal observed that the appellant’s initial posting at Panjgoor was merely an acting charge or stop-gap arrangement. Upon the appellant's promotion to BS-18, the government exercised its authority to post him against a regular vacancy in Quetta. The Tribunal affirmed that under Section 10 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant is liable to serve anywhere in the province, and the government retains the prerogative to make transfers and postings. Consequently, the challenge to the transfer order was dismissed as the appellant had no vested right to a particular post, and the transfer was consistent with his promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right to remain at a particular station of posting?
  • Is a transfer order valid if it is issued upon the promotion of a civil servant to a regular post?
  • Does the government have the prerogative to transfer a civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik etc. vs Mst. Subbha Mai alias Sabbah Mai.2015 LHC 5362 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik and another vs Additional Collector of Customs and another2015 PTD (Trib.) 1351 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed. vs Chief Secretary Punjab etc.2015 LHC 3766 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-12
  repatriationdeputationistvested rightcivil servanttransfer and postingwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an Inspector of Punjab Police challenging the notification and subsequent rejection order regarding his repatriation from the Anti-Corruption Establishment back to his parent department, the Punjab Police. The core legal question was whether a deputationist has a vested right to remain on deputation or to challenge an order of repatriation without the parent department assigning reasons. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on a post indefinitely or for a stipulated period and can be ordered to be repatriated to their parent department at any time without the department being obliged to assign reasons. The key principle laid down is that deputationists possess no vested right to hold a particular post on deputation and their repatriation is entirely within the competence of the competent authority without requiring assigned reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post for a stipulated period?
  • Is the parent department obliged in law to assign reasons for the repatriation of a deputationist?
  • Can a civil servant on deputation challenge their repatriation order through a constitutional petition on the ground of arbitrariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementidentification paradeinadmissible confessioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Abdul Majeed, who was accused of murder and theft in F.I.R. No. 437/2013. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his implication. The petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R., was not subjected to an identification parade, and was only implicated five months later via a supplementary statement based on an inadmissible confession made by co-accused persons to the complainant while in police custody. The Court held that the prosecution's case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that an accused has a right to bail when the case falls under the category of further inquiry, even if the challan has been submitted. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, noting that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and that his continued incarceration served no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made by a co-accused to a complainant while in police custody admissible evidence?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. and the lack of an identification parade constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely because a challan has been submitted to the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Chief Secretary, Punjab, etc2015 C.L.R. 1024 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-12
  deputationistrepatriationvested righttransfer and postingcivil servantwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an Inspector of Punjab Police who was transferred and posted in the Anti-Corruption Establishment, challenging subsequent notifications ordering his repatriation to his parent department and the rejection of his representation. The core legal question was whether a deputationist has a vested right to remain on a deputation post or to challenge an order of repatriation to their parent department. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on a deputation post indefinitely or for a stipulated period, and can be repatriated to their parent department at any time without the department being obliged to assign reasons. The key principle laid down is that deputationists hold no vested right to a particular post on deputation and their parent departments possess the legal competence to recall or repatriate them without providing reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post on deputation forever or for a stipulated period?
  • Is the parent department obliged in law to assign reasons for the repatriation of a deputationist?
  • Can a civil servant challenge their repatriation order from a deputation post as being without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore and 4 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 1381 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-12
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantvested rightparent departmentwrit petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an Inspector of the Punjab Police challenging his repatriation from the Anti-Corruption Establishment to his parent department. The petitioner contended that his transfer and subsequent repatriation were arbitrary, politically motivated, and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 9, 14, and 18 of the Constitution. He argued that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly and not at the whims of authorities. The Court examined whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to remain in a posted position for a specific duration. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a deputationist has no vested legal right to continue in a post indefinitely or for a stipulated period. The parent department or borrowing authority retains the competence to repatriate a civil servant at any time without assigning specific reasons. The Court concluded that the impugned orders did not suffer from legal infirmity, as the petitioner remained a member of his parent department and could be recalled in the interest of service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed through L.Rs. and others vs Sher Din through L.Rs.20I5 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-01-14
  pre-emptioncolony landoral saletransfer of propertyco-sharersuperior right of pre-emptionregistration
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the appellants' regular second appeal and decreeing the respondents' pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land situated in a Colony Chak. The core legal questions involved whether colony lands in the erstwhile State of Bahawalpur are exempt from pre-emption under relevant notifications, and whether an oral sale of land valued over one hundred rupees confers a sufficient superior right on a pre-emptor where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments, holding that land allotted as a colony land under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and excluded from pre-emption via notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 remains exempt even upon subsequent transfer, and that an oral sale violating Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 fails to confer a valid title or co-sharer status to maintain a pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether colony lands allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and exempted through a notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 are subject to pre-emption upon subsequent private transfer?
  • Does an oral sale of immovable property exceeding the value of one hundred rupees confer a valid title or co-sharer status sufficient to maintain a suit for pre-emption in areas where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is applicable?
  • Whether the requirement of a registered instrument under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is mandatory for establishing a superior right of pre-emption based on co-sharership in the former State of Bahawalpur?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Palari vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtchain of custodyindependent mashircriminal appealpolice witnessrecovery proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of 240 grams of Charas. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended by police following a tip-off, yet no independent witnesses were associated with the recovery despite the police having prior information. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police-only evidence in the absence of independent witnesses, the impact of material contradictions in prosecution testimony, and the integrity of the chain of custody regarding the seized narcotics. The High Court found significant discrepancies between the complainant and the recovery witness regarding the timing and manner of the seizure. Furthermore, the court noted a failure to account for the custody of the contraband during the period before it reached the Chemical Examiner. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery, despite having prior information, violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when there are material contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the recovery witness?
  • Does an unexplained delay or gap in the custody of seized narcotics before reaching the Chemical Examiner create a reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence fails to inspire judicial confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Abdul Rasheed,etc.2015 LHC 5296 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed (Deceased) through L.RS. and Others vs Sher Din2015 NLR Civil 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptioncolony landoral saletransfer of propertysuperior right of pre-emptionregistration of sale deedBahawalpur State
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal, thereby upholding a decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions were whether land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, in the former State of Bahawalpur is exempt from pre-emption, and whether a pre-emptor can establish a superior right of pre-emption based on an oral sale in an area where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requires a registered instrument for the transfer of immovable property. The Supreme Court held that the land in question, being 'colony land' under the 1912 Act, was excluded from the purview of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, by a 1944 government notification. Furthermore, the Court held that an oral sale does not confer a valid title to support a pre-emption claim where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is applicable. The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit, establishing that such colony lands are exempt from pre-emption and that oral sales are insufficient to ground a pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 in the former State of Bahawalpur exempt from pre-emption?
  • Can a pre-emptor maintain a suit for pre-emption based on an oral sale in an area where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is applicable?
  • Does the exemption from pre-emption for colony lands apply only to the original allotment or also to subsequent transfers and sales?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed (deceased) through L.Rs, and others vs Sher Din2015 NLR Civil 225, 2015 PLJ SC 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptioncolony landoral saletransfer of propertysuperior right of pre-emptionState of Bahawalpur
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involve whether agricultural land in a Colony Chak in Bahawalpur is exempt from pre-emption under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and whether an oral sale violating Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 confers a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that colony lands subject to the 1912 Act are exempt from pre-emption pursuant to notifications issued under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and that subsequent private ownership does not extinguish this exemption. Furthermore, the Court held that an oral sale of immovable property exceeding one hundred rupees in value, where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies, is invalid without a registered instrument and does not vest the purported vendee with a superior right to maintain a pre-emption suit. The appeal was allowed and the pre-emption suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 in a colony area is exempt from the right of pre-emption?
  • Does an oral sale of immovable property exceeding one hundred rupees in value, in an area where Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies, confer a valid right or title to maintain a suit for pre-emption?
  • Whether the exemption from pre-emption granted to colony lands extends to subsequent private transfers and sales by an allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maalik The State vs The State & another Abdul Maalik2015 LHC 7210 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-03
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessioncapital punishmentDNA evidencecriminal appeallast seen evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder, kidnapping, and screening of evidence. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily an alleged extra-judicial confession and the subsequent recovery of a skeleton, identified via DNA analysis. The Lahore High Court examined whether this evidence was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and confidence-inspiring chain of circumstances. It observed that the extra-judicial confession was suspiciously detailed, lacked credibility, and was contradicted by the surrounding circumstances, including the implausible timing of police arrival. Furthermore, the Court noted that the "last seen" evidence lacked the necessary proximity in time and space. Emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis of innocence to support a capital charge, the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and ordered the appellant's immediate release, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession that is suspiciously comprehensive and detailed be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Is DNA evidence alone sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the 'last seen' evidence require proximity in time and space to be considered a valid link in a chain of circumstantial evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a conviction based on circumstantial evidence be set aside by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maalik and another vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan2015 PLJ Lahore 197 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  narcotic possessionbenefit of doubtpolice witness credibilitycriminal appealrecovery of narcoticsappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (CNS), Khairpur, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 4000 grams of Charas, sentencing him to six years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the lack of independent witnesses invalidated the police testimony, and whether the appellant's claim of enmity with police officials warranted acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was consistent, the chemical report was positive, and the appellant failed to establish any nexus between his alleged enmity and the present case. The Court affirmed the conviction, reiterating that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded solely due to their employment status. The judgment upholds the principle that the 'golden rule' of benefit of doubt applies only when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's case, which were absent here. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are police employees?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the threshold for applying the 'golden rule' of benefit of doubt in criminal cases?
  • Is a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable if the prosecution proves the recovery of narcotics without material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 1083 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-20
  post-arrest bailmurderplea of alibifurther inquirypromptly lodged FIRblood feud
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Abdul Latif, sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from FIR No. 46 dated 23-3-2014 registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shaheed Nawab Khan Paharpur, involving the murder of Syed Farooq Ali Shah pursuant to an alleged previous blood feud. Lower forums dismissed his applications. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of a purported plea of alibi, generalized allegations, and alleged inconsistencies between the ocular account, medical evidence, and site plan. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR with specific firearm attribution, supported by eye-witness accounts and medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that a plea of alibi and alleged inconsistencies requiring a deeper appraisal of evidence cannot be deeply evaluated at the bail stage, and a ground for further inquiry must rest on rational material rather than hypothetical statements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR for murder with a specific role is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a plea of alibi raised by an accused be conclusively evaluated at the bail stage without recording evidence?
  • Whether alleged inconsistencies between the FIR, site plan, and medical evidence warrant further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • What constitutes a valid ground for further inquiry in a criminal case for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Director General Intelligence & Investigation & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Sheikh, Advocate vs M/s World Call Telecom LimitedSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Khan and 7 othersTALIB Hussain vs Naziran Begum and 52015 YLR 427 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-06-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Khan and 7 others vs Naziran Begum and 5 others2015 PSC 15 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-06-12
  evacuee propertyallotmentreview petitionlimitationexclusive jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionbinding precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the Court arise from a consolidated judgment of the High Court accepting writ petitions filed by the respondents concerning the cancellation and restoration of land allotments made to refugees and local destitutes. The core legal questions involved the competence of the appeals under court rules, whether a review petition filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property is subject to a period of limitation, and whether the High Court could interfere with exclusive tribunal findings and binding precedents of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that an application for review made by a party to the Custodian must be filed within the prescribed limitation period of thirty days, whereas suo motu review by the Custodian is not subject to such limitation. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court is bound to follow the dictates and questions of law settled by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, and cannot rely on external High Court judgments that run counter to binding domestic apex court jurisprudence. Consequently, the appeals were accepted and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for review filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property is subject to a period of limitation?
  • Can the Custodian of Evacuee Property exercise review powers suo motu without being restricted by a limitation period?
  • Is the High Court bound to follow the questions of law and principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir under the Constitution?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact and exclusive tribunal decisions where the review petition before the tribunal was rightly dismissed as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khanan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2015 PLC (C.S.) 159 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-21
  out of turn promotionpolice servicelocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petitionservice structurefundamental rightsdemotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the demotion of a police official, whose out-of-turn promotion was reversed by the department following the Supreme Court’s decision in Criminal Original Petition No. 89 of 2011. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s promotion, granted for exceptional performance, was hit by the Supreme Court’s declaration that out-of-turn promotions are illegal and unconstitutional. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner’s promotion was indeed an out-of-turn promotion, falling squarely within the ambit of the Supreme Court’s prohibition. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, ruling that an illegal order cannot be protected from reversal simply because it attained finality. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction, noting that out-of-turn promotions involve fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that such promotions are contrary to the Constitution and Islamic injunctions, as they create undue preference and diminish the spirit of public service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the demotion order as compliant with the binding precedent set by the apex Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to hear a petition regarding out-of-turn promotion despite the bar in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the doctrine of locus poenitentiae applicable to an order that is illegal and unconstitutional?
  • Does the Supreme Court judgment in Criminal Original Petition No. 89 of 2011 regarding out-of-turn promotions apply nationwide?
  • Can an out-of-turn promotion be sustained if it was granted based on exceptional performance and departmental committee recommendations?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal jail appealmurderrelated witnessesre-investigationfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtarms ordinance recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and chance eyewitnesses, the implications of a second police investigation, the applicability of the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, and the effect of an acquittal under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully established the time, place, manner of the incident, and the fatal attribution through consistent ocular testimony which was substantially corroborated even by the defence evidence. The court laid down the principle that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan, courts must sift the grain from the chaff, relationship alone does not render a witness incredible unless animus is proven, and an acquittal in a collateral arms recovery case does not shield an accused from conviction in the main murder trial where ocular and medical evidence proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is applicable in the criminal administration of justice in Pakistan?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused in an off-shoot case under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance automatically entitle him to acquittal in the main murder trial?
  • Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their blood relationship with the deceased?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a subsequent or second police investigation conducted at the instance of the accused party?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and others vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 965 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-24
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidenceidentification of accusednocturnal occurrenceinconsistency in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of appellants Abdul Khaliq and Talib Hussain for the murder of Shehnaz Qadir under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the identity of the assailants and the reliability of the ocular account. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court noted that the incident occurred at night without a proven source of illumination, rendering the identification of the assailants doubtful. Furthermore, there was a significant, irreconcilable discrepancy between the ocular testimony, which alleged two firearm shots, and the medical evidence, which recorded seven distinct injuries on the deceased. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon was deemed inconsequential as no crime empties were recovered from the crime scene to link the weapon to the offense. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove a source of light during a nocturnal occurrence?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to prove guilt if no crime empties were recovered from the crime scene to match it?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Sain Muhammad and another2015 CLC 689 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-10-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Bilal Atiq and 4 others2015 CLC 1451 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Nausherwani and another vs The State through Chief Ehtesab2015 PSC Crl. 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  corruption and corrupt practicesEhtesab Ordinanceabuse of official positionpublic office holdermisappropriation of government propertycriminal appealmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a High Court judgment convicting a former Food Minister and a businessman under the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997, for corruption and corrupt practices regarding the unauthorized supply of government wheat on credit. The core legal question was whether the Minister’s actions, taken without legal authority or established policy and despite departmental resistance, constituted an offence under the Ordinance, and whether the absence of direct personal financial gain or proven mens rea precluded conviction. The Supreme Court, by majority, upheld the convictions, holding that the Ehtesab Ordinance employs expansive language covering actions contrary to law, rule, or usage, or involving the abuse of official position. The Court determined that the Minister’s persistent insistence on implementing orders, coupled with the failure to substantiate alleged Prime Ministerial directives, established the offence of corruption. The key principle laid down is that where legislation defines corruption in broad, inclusive terms, courts must give effect to that clear language, and public office holders cannot evade liability for abusing their position by citing non-existent directives or ignoring established departmental procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of corruption and corrupt practices under the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997, encompass actions taken by a public office holder that are contrary to law or rule, even in the absence of direct personal financial gain?
  • Can a public office holder be convicted for corruption when they insist on implementing orders that contradict established departmental policy and lack legal authorization?
  • Does the burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of an accused person shift to the accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Does the repayment of misappropriated funds during trial proceedings absolve an accused of the offence of corruption under the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997?
  Read full judgment →