Legal Aid Practitioner

22/02/2026

2026 S C M R 31 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S. 13(2)(i)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Landlord seeking ejectment of tenant and recovery of arrears of rent---Claim of arrears filed by landlord after four years without any credible evidence---Burden on landlord to prove claim of rent---High Court allowed the ejectment petition along with recovery of rent---Legality--Respondent / landlord filed an ejectment application before the rent controller against petitioners / tenants seeking possession of the shop in question along with recovery of rent from 2016 onwards---The respondent / landlord claimed that the tenancy agreement had expired in 2016, yet the petitioners retained possession after locking the premises---The petitioners submitted a reply asserting that they had already handed over vacant possession and paid all dues but did not contest further and were proceeded against ex-parte---The rent controller allowed the ejectment application but rejected the rent arrears claim which was affirmed in appeal---However, High Court set aside the concurrent findings, granting ejectment along with recovery of rent from January 2016 to January 2024, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court---Held: Both the rent controller and the appellate authority concurrently found that the respondent / landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving rent arrears or continued possession by the petitioners after 2016---These findings were based on appreciation of evidence, or the lack thereof, and did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error---No witness was produced to support the claim that the petitioners / tenants continued to occupy the premises after 2016---The individual named S , in whose purported assurance the respondent / landlord allegedly refrained from taking possession, was neither impleaded as a party nor summoned as a witness, therefore, such omission constituted withholding of the best available evidence---Furthermore, the statutory regime under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 prescribed a period of sixty days for initiating proceedings in cases of non-payment of rent, in the absence of a fixed timeline in the tenancy agreement---In the present case, the tenancy agreement expired in 2016 and the ejectment application was filed in 2020 and no explanation was offered for this extraordinary delay, nor was there any plea of acknowledgment or revival of the tenancy in the interceding period---The unexplained lapse of nearly four years was fatal to the claim, both on grounds of limitation and laches---The finding of the High Court that the respondent/landlord was entitled to rent for eight years, in the absence of proof of possession or an ongoing tenancy, disregarded fundamental rules of evidence---The landlord, having admitted that the shop remained locked and having produced no cogent evidence to show that the petitioners/tenants used or benefited from the premises during that period, cannot be awarded rent merely because the tenants failed to actively contest the proceedings---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

20/03/2025

2025 MLD 256 Federal Shariat Court

Identity of assailants---Accused were charged for attacking an official pickup carrying Police Officials with hand gr***de, Kalashnikovs and other firearm weapons which caused death of five Police Officials while injuries to two Constables and robbed cash and Kalashnikovs of the police with ammunition and pocket phone---Surprisingly, when assailant threw hand gr***des and resorted to firing, in such state of panic, how the injured eye-witnesses were able to identify the assailants and the official vehicle which was damaged---Not understandable that how the names and parentage of the assailants numbering 18, who belonging to different villages, came to the knowledge of the injured eye-witnesses---In view of such glaring contradictions, the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses was unworthy and did not inspire confidence, and could not be relied upon---Complainant narrated in murasila and also while appearing as witness that accused belonged to the banned Taliban organization but no source of information regarding their nexus with the Taliban was brought on record by the prosecution to prove its stance---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

20/03/2025

2025 SCMR 281

Reappraisal of evidence---Doubts as to the correct time of registration of FIR---As per the evidence a lot of time must have been consumed in arranging the weightlifter (crane) and removing the debris of the building and bringing out the dead bodies of 06 police persons from underneath the said debris and thereafter in preparation of the injury statements and inquest reports of the said dead bodies---It was not possible to complete all these proceedings within a period of 30 minutes as claimed by the prosecution---It was, thus evident that the FIR was not lodged at the given time mentioned in the relevant column of the FIR rather the same was registered with a considerable delay but the wrong time of registration of the FIR had been mentioned in its relevant columns to show the promptness of the FIR---Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the petitioners (accused persons) beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside and the petitioners were acquitted of all the charges while extending them the benefit of doubt.

19/03/2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)


PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar
Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Mr. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim

Criminal Appeal Nos.229 & 230 of 2021
(On appeal against the judgments dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Murder Reference Nos.36 of 2014, 105 of 2009 & Crl.A.Nos.10-J of 2014 & Crl.As.14-J, 81 & 96 of 2009)


Sher Afzal (Crl.A.229/21)
Muhammad Latif (Crl.A.230/21) ............… Appellant(s)
Vs.
TheState (in both cases) .......................…Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 25.02.2025

AUTHOR OF JUDGMENT

Salahuddin Panhwar, J.

I take the prerogative in defining the term "Reasonable doubt", when the law requires it to become the basis for advancing the benefit of doubt, it means having regard to the circumstances of the case which includes following points:-
* It may be entertained by persons of common prudence,
*The doubt must be genuine and inherent in present circumstances
*It must not be artificial, imaginary or exaggerated in nature.
*The doubt must not belong to a weak and vacillating mind, nor to a person inclined to be over-suspicious or unduly to magnify his doubt.

The doctrinal principles applied in west cannot stricto sensu be applied in Pakistan for multiple reasons which I shall discuss hereafter, a prime example is the “Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus” principle which is that witness who lies about any fact must be disbelieved as to all other facts, considering the social circumstance of the subcontinent, the rule’s application has been modified by this court in the Khizar Hayat Case to the extent that the contradiction must be regarding “material facts” only.

However, the application of “Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus” does not render the principle of “to sift the grain out of the chaff” redundant, since the judge now still has to sift the grain out of chaff, whilst he differentiates between the materiality of the facts in appraisal of evidence.

This court has held numerous times, that the primary duty of the judge is to sift the grain out of the shaft e.g. in the Khadim Hussain Case, Muhammad Afzal Case5 & Munir Ahmad Case6 and one shall not lose sight that the criminal case is to be decided in its totality of its circumstance as held in the case of Muhammad Makki Case and
recently in Sadaruddin Case.

The above stated modification was introduced after considering the society existing in the subcontinent. In an article “Truthful Character of Indian Witnesses” 9 Thakur Prasad Dubey had written about the unfortunate trend of false testimonies in courts in the undivided India.

He observed as follows: "It is a well-known fact that Judges even of the Highest Tribunals of the land have very often expressed their opinions that witnesses in India are greater liars than elsewhere and such an opinion yet continues to be entertained throughout the country by many Judges.

The Judicial Committee made the following observations in a Mudhoo Soodun Case that "It is quite true that such is the lamentable disregard of truth prevailing among the native inhabitants of Hindustan that all oral evidence is necessarily received with great suspicion." Their Lordships again affirmed their conviction in another reported case where it was said: "In a native case it is not uncommon to find a true case placed on a false foundation and supported in part by false evidence." So we are of the view that it holds even greater value in cases of direct evidence and hits the last hammer in support of the prosecution at its conclusion.

In light of the foregoing, the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sher Afzal, are upheld on three counts, as the prosecution has successfully established the charges related to the murders of Taj Muhammad, Mst. Afsar Jan, and Shahbaz Khan. Similarly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Latif, are maintained on two counts for the murders of Sajid Hussain and Muhammad Ismail. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, both appeals stand dismissed.

24/02/2025

The natural father and brother of deceased, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, did not accompany the deceased to the hospital and were not mentioned in the inquest or post-mortem reports as identifiers of the dead body. This fact alone strongly suggests their absence from the scene of the incident.

04/02/2025

28/01/2025

CPLA.Nos.3589,3590 &3602/2022 Supreme Court of Pakistan

Dated: 29.10.2024

A remedy provided through recourse to a court of law cannot be suppressed or supplanted by an inbuilt dispute resolution mechanism, especially when the law expressly permits the consumer to lodge grievances before the Gas Utility Court. This court is specifically constituted to settle disputes and complaints brought by the Gas Utility Company and the consumer, vice versa. The rule of purposive interpretation emphasizes that even if an alternate remedy for dispute resolution is provided under the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, the consumer cannot be compelled to first avail the remedy under the Complaint Resolution Procedure. This is because Section 6 of the 2016 Act neither imposes such an embargo nor debars the consumer from directly invoking the jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court. On the contrary, a visible inference can be drawn that the consumer has the choice of which remedy to opt for in resolving billing or metering disputes. Therefore, the consumer cannot be nonsuited by the Gas Utility Court on this basis.

Whenever two interpretations are plausible or achievable, the Court ought to prefer the interpretation that expands the remedy and represses the mischief. The Court should also avoid and eschew interpretations that render the statute or its provisions ineffective without good reason and, instead, the Court should sustain the elementary objective of the statute.

28/01/2025

"Ut res magis valeat quam pereat" is a Latin phrase that translates to "it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void," meaning that when interpreting a law or document, the construction that gives it effect should be chosen over one that would render it useless or invalid.

The core idea is to favor an interpretation that gives meaning and purpose to a document rather than one that would make it null and void.If a law has two possible interpretations, one that makes it largely ineffective and another that allows it to function, the court would typically choose the interpretation that makes the law operational, following the "ut res magis valeat quam pereat" principle.

22/11/2024

DBA Kamber-Shahdadkot passed resolution against construction of Six Canals on Indus River and against IRSA Amendment Ordinance 2024

05/05/2024

THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan

Criminal Petition No.99-K/2018
Against the order dated 20.7.2018 passed by High
Court of Sindh, Karachi, Skkur Bench in Crl. M.A
Nos.S-531/2016, 81, 29, 63 & 61/2017

Syed Qamber Ali Shah .....…Petitioner(s)
Versus
Province of Sindh and others....…Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, AOR a/w
Petitioner In person

Date of Hearing: 02.04.2024

Judgment
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.- .............................................

There is no provision in any law, including Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C., which authorizes an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold any enquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information before complying with the command of the said provisions. He is obligated to reduce the same into writing, notwithstanding the fact whether such information is true or otherwise. The condition precedent for recording an FIR is that it should convey the information of an offence and that too a cognizable one.
The remedy of filing a direct complaint cannot measure or match up to themechanism provided under section 154, Cr.P.C., in which the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is duty bound to record the statement and register the FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. If in each and every case it is presumed or assumed that instead of insisting or emphasizing the lodgment of an FIR, the party may file a direct complaint, then the purpose of recording an FIR, as envisaged under section 154, Cr.P.C., will become redundant and futile and it would be very easy for the police to refuse the registration of an FIR with the advice to file direct complaint.
However, in some exceptional circumstances, the alternate remedy in the shape of direct complaint may be availed but not in every case. The statutory duty casts upon the officer of a police station to enter
information regarding the cognizable offence first and then the
investigation comes later in order to gather evidence and other relevant material to prosecute the identified culprits.

03/02/2023

Record transpired that on the basis of same evidence co-accused had been acquitted while the accused had been convicted which appeared to be surprising, Prosecution, in circumstances, had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 P.Cr.L.J 25
SHC Hyderabad Bench

26/10/2022

What Nawaz Sharif says about Sindhi judges on page number 37 of the book "Ghadar Koon" which is Nawaz Sharif's story in his own words. This is the reason why the current Chief Justice of supreme Court does not want a Sindhi judge!