Riaz Ali Panhwar Law Associates

16/02/2026

My write-up saw the light of publication in The Express Tribune newspaper dated 16.02.2026.

Court delays

04/02/2026

My write up

It has been reported that a 17-year-old girl was taken into police custody in connection with a murder case in Jacobabad. During her detention, and in the absence of the Station House Officer,...

02/02/2026

2026 CLC 40

Board of Revenue, statutory duty of---Board of Revenue, at the top of the revenue hierarchy, has a statutory duty to interpret the law, apply it to individual cases that come before it and establish legal precedents for its subordinates to follow---Any errors in its understanding or application of the law, or in setting legal precedents, can and must be corrected within the constitutional jurisdiction---Failure to address these errors could undermine the rule of law.


Alteration/modification/cancellation of entries in revenue record---Scope---Suo motu jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings---Scope---Absence of proper inquiry and procedural safeguards---Effect---Challenge thrown to orders passed by the Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Sindh, being violative of Ss. 44, 45 & 164(3) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act)---Validity---Orders transgressed the jurisdictional bounds of the Member Judicial-II due to the absence of a proper inquiry as enjoined by S. 44 of the Act; also due to inadequate evidence to support the annulment as necessitated by S. 45 of the Act and failure to comply with the procedural safeguards enshrined in S. 164 of the Act---While assuming such jurisdiction, the Member (Judicial-II), BoR, Sindh, passed the orders without adhering to the procedural safeguards mandated by the Act, thereby acting ultra vires and failing to conduct a proper inquiry. rendering the orders void ab initio---Member (Judicial-II), BoR, Sindh, not only assumed jurisdiction illegally but also acted with material irregularity in promulgating the orders, which exceeded his scope and authority---Any deviation from the established procedural and statutory provisions constitutes a violation of law and procedure, consequently rendering the order illegal and mala fide---Impugned orders were held to be passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Any deviation from the established procedural and statutory provisions constitutes a violation of law and procedure, consequently rendering the order illegal and mala fide.

02/02/2026

2021 PLD 586
LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Ss. 6 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302, 324 , 337-F & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 167 & 497---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, common intention---bail , grant of---Release of juvenile on bail ---Delay in conclusion of trial due to determination of age of accused---Accused sought post-arrest bail , inter alia, on ground that he had been in detention for a period exceeding six months, and being a juvenile was entitled to bail per Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---Contention of prosecution, however, was that delay occurred in determining as to whether accused was juvenile, and such application for determination of age was moved by him, making accused responsible for delay---Validity----Time spent by accused in obtaining declaration that he was a juvenile could not be counted to his disadvantage---Section 8(2) of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 stipulated that an accused who appeared to be juvenile must be brought before a court under S.167, Cr.P.C . and court before granting detention, must record its findings on issue of accused's age---In present case, neither the police nor court performed such statutory duty---Accused's case fell within ambit of S.6(5) of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 and he had been detained for a continuous period exceeding six months, and trial had not been concluded, and such delay was not attributable to him---Accused was therefore admitted to post-arrest bail , accordingly.

30/01/2026

2025 SCMR 787

Al-Haaj Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF…………Petitioner
Versus
JAVED AKHTAR and another…………………Respondents

Illegal Dispossession Act, (XI of 2005)
Accused was a co owner in property in question and High Court had acquitted him of the charge. Co owner is deemed to be in constructive possession of every inch of joint holding unless a formal partition has been effected. Jurisprudence on co ownership consistently affirms that one co owner cannot alleged dispossession at the hands of another without establishing exclusive possession through partition proceedings. Provision of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not confined to cases involving land grabbers or Qabza Mafia but extends to any person who has been illegally dispossessed from immovable property, however it is applicable only where parties are co owners, question of forcible dispossession does not arise unless partition proceedings have concluded and exclusive ownership is established. Acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Appellate Court should exercise restraint in overturning an acquittal unless the judgment is manifestly perverse, arbitrary or suffers from a glaring misreading or non reading of material evidence.

08/01/2026

My write up dated 08.01.2026

Bricks of Faith and PeacePeace is universally recognised as a fundamental value essential to social order and human coexistence. Its very expression conveys

03/01/2026

My write up.

This is to draw the urgent attention of both authorities and the public to a grave violation of legal and human rights that recently came to light in Sukkur. A

03/01/2026

My write up featured in The Nation Newspaper.

I wish to draw the attention of the concerned authorities, human rights bodies and the wider public, through this write-up, to the rapidly deteriorating

01/01/2026

2011 SCMR 218 SUPREME-COURT
ZAFAR. Vs. MUHAMMAD ABAD
S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.1 85(3)---Supreme Court Rule s, 1 980, O.###I II, R.6---Bail granting order---Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against such order---Said petition had been filed 22 days after the prescribed period of limitation---Counsel for the petitioner had no plausible explanation to offer in that regard---Even in the application for condonation of delay filed under O.###I II, R.6 of Supreme Court Rule s, 1 980, no plausible or sufficient cause had been disclosed by the petitioner for not approaching the Supreme Court within time---Petition was dismissed being barred by limitation.

27/12/2025

" جس لمحے انسان پورے عزم کے ساتھ خود کو کسی کام کے لیے وقف کر دیتا ہے، قدرت بھی حرکت میں آ جاتی ہے۔ جو کچھ تم سمجھتے ہو کہ کر سکتے ہو، یا جس پر تمہیں یقین ہے کہ کر سکتے ہو, اس کا آغاز کر دو۔ عمل میں جادو ہے، طاقت ہے اور فضل ہے ۔"

یوہان وولف گانگ فان گوئٹے

26/12/2025

2025 SCMR 1603
Placitum D
Inordinate delay in dispatching recovered empties and weapons notwithstanding positive results by FSL, is of no vail. Appeal allowed.

25/12/2025

2025 S C M R 1710
ABID and another
versus
The STATE

Confession, retraction of .... Conviction and sentence can be awarded to the accused on the basis of his/her retracted judicial confession, provided that the said judicial confession is corroborated by some independent evidence.