Ten reportable judgments across the upload window of 18, 19 and 20 August 2026 — five from the Supreme Court, three from the Lahore High Court and two from the Sindh High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court and the Islamabad High Court returned no new entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Mashal Azam v. Superintendent Central Jail, Adyala & connected matters — a judicial order dropping contempt proceedings without recording reasons offends the fair-trial guarantee and the “culture of justification” under which judicial orders must disclose their reasoning; and the State’s obligation to safeguard the life, health and dignity of persons in custody entitles a prisoner to full disclosure of his medical record and proper arrangements for treatment. Notice issued in the contempt appeals; interim medical directions issued (shifting to Shifa International, a medical board, family and physician access), on reciprocal conditions; matter part-heard and fixed for 16.09.2026.
• Muhammad Iftikhar Shoukat v. Haji Muhammad Hayat (deceased) through LRs — revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC is supervisory and limited, and remanded proceedings must be concluded within the time fixed by the remanding court or within a reasonable time; the mere pendency of a higher-court proceeding is no substitute for a stay order. Petition dismissed; the trial court directed to conclude the remand within two months and a copy circulated to all High Courts for expeditious disposal of remanded cases.
• Muhammad Hussain v. The State — where only a consolidated or representative sample of a narcotics recovery is sent for chemical analysis, conviction and sentence can rest only on the quantity actually analysed (here 7.5 kg out of a notional 1,500 kg). Appeal partly allowed; conviction under section 9(c) CNSA maintained but the life sentence reduced to seven years.
• Nadeem v. The State — a judicial confession recorded after unexplained delay, bereft of material particulars (no date, time, place, manner or even identity of the victim) and uncorroborated by any independent evidence, cannot sustain a murder conviction, particularly once retracted on a plea of inducement. Jail petition converted into appeal and allowed; conviction set aside and the accused acquitted on benefit of doubt.
• Faheem alias Babbly v. The State — where the genesis of the occurrence is unexplained, the accused himself sustained unexplained injuries and a single unrepeated blow was struck without premeditation, the case falls within section 302(c) PPC rather than 302(b). Conviction altered from 302(b) to 302(c) with fourteen years’ RI; the complainant’s petition for enhancement to death dismissed.

Lahore High Court

• Shafique Khushnood v. Medical Superintendent, Lahore General Hospital — “termination from service” is not a penalty listed in section 4 of the PEEDA Act 2006 and an order imposing it is void; and a regular inquiry may not be dispensed with, on disputed questions of fact, without justifiable reasons recorded in the show-cause notice. Writ petition partly allowed; the impugned orders set aside and the security guard reinstated, with liberty to hold a regular inquiry and decide back benefits.
• Muhammad Akhtar v. The State — absent entrustment, the retention of a commission out of money handed to a beneficiary is cheating (bailable) and not criminal breach of trust, and the addition of section 409 PPC to defeat bail will not be countenanced (BISP/Ehsaas agents). Post-arrest bail granted as a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
• Masood Aslam v. The State — the considerations governing the grant of bail and its cancellation are distinct, and a bail-granting order will be recalled only if it is perverse on its face or made in clear disregard of settled principles of law. Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail dismissed in limine, the order below being neither perverse nor legally infirm (six-month delayed FIR as a counterblast to a civil suit).

Sindh High Court

• Air Vice Marshal Muhammad Afzal v. Sqdn. Ldr. (R) K.A. Chaudhry — official documents carry a presumption of genuineness and public records are presumed to be within the adversary’s knowledge (so a public transfer order sets limitation running against a plea of belated discovery), and an instrument is construed by its substance, not the label of “relinquishment”: an arrangement with offer, acceptance and consideration is a sale simpliciter needing no registration. Appeal dismissed; the single judge’s decree maintained with costs, the 1996 suit held hopelessly time-barred (Articles 91, 120, 142 Limitation Act).
• Muhammad Tasleem Rajput v. Province of Sindh — the Board of Revenue has no suo motu power of review under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act 1957, a review application must be filed within ninety days, and review jurisdiction cannot be used as a retrial or on unparticularised recitals of “public importance” or “forgery”. Constitutional petition allowed; the review order restoring cancellation of the land entries set aside as unlawful and without jurisdiction.