Thirteen reportable judgments in the 18–20 June 2026 window — one from the Federal Constitutional Court, six from the Supreme Court, four from the Lahore High Court and two from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Sindh Secretariat Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Province of Sindh — disputes touching the business of a cooperative society, including challenges to concluded elections, fall within the exclusive first-instance jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court under sections 73, 116 and 117 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act 2020, and the High Court should not have entertained a constitutional petition turning on disputed questions of fact. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment set aside and the matter remanded to the Cooperative Court.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Mian Abdul Saeed v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — a civil servant removed solely on a criminal conviction and later honourably acquitted is entitled, under Fundamental Rule 54 read with section 17 of the KP Civil Servants Act 1973, to full back benefits with the intervening period treated as spent on duty. Appeal allowed; Tribunal judgment set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh order on back benefits within two months.
• Younas Masih v. The State — a child found competent under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can sustain a rape conviction and a negative semen report is not exculpatory; but section 376(iii) PPC offers alternative punishments and, absent proven aggravating history, imprisonment for life is the proportionate sentence. Conviction maintained; death sentence altered to imprisonment for life.
• Mehmood Khan v. The State — in a prosecution under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 a single missing link in the chain of safe custody and transmission entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and section 33(4) CNSA read with section 516-A CrPC mandates judicially supervised custody and destruction. Conviction set aside and petitioners acquitted; country-wide directions issued.
• Alam Khan v. The State — a “secret cavity” narcotics conviction under section 9(c) CNSA cannot stand without production of the vehicle or clear photographs of the cavities, proof of the accused’s possession, and the Malkhana register and road certificate evidencing safe transmission to the forensic agency. Conviction set aside and petitioner acquitted.
• Additional Director Civilian Personnel, Air Headquarters Peshawar v. Muzafar Masih — under Article 212 of the Constitution a Service Tribunal cannot re-appraise evidence and substitute its view where a departmental inquiry under the E&D Rules 1973 was lawful, and unrebutted testimony together with a voluntary, unretracted confession carries full evidentiary value. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; dismissal from service restored.
• Lahore High Court v. Muhammad Afzal Zahid — for a judicial officer integrity is “binary”, so a sustained finding of bad repute justifies removal from service even without a proved act of corruption, and compulsory retirement with benefits cannot be substituted. CPLA converted into appeal and partly allowed; penalty of removal from service restored.

Lahore High Court

• Bilal Ahmad v. The State — mutually contradictory chance-witness testimony, an apparently ante-timed FIR identifiable from the inquest report, and an unexplained postmortem delay entitle the accused to acquittal on benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Appeal accepted, conviction and life sentence set aside and the appellant acquitted; the complainant’s revision for enhancement dismissed.
• Muhammad Haneef v. The State — where the inquest report bears FIR particulars though prepared before registration, the medical officer did not sign the FIR, chance witnesses contradict one another and the safe-custody chain (the Malkhana register under Article 155 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984) is broken, a murder conviction cannot be sustained. Appeal accepted; conviction and life sentence set aside and the appellant acquitted.
• Ghulam Muhammad v. Mst. Shahida Parveen — a mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title, and a beneficiary of an oral gift must independently prove offer, acceptance and delivery of possession rather than rely on the donor’s admission of signatures on the mutation. Civil revision allowed; appellate judgment set aside and the trial court’s decree restored.
• The State v. Intizar Hussain Shah — the in-court murder of two advocates by an on-duty ASI wielding his official weapon falls within section 6(b) read with section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, lawyer-eyewitnesses naturally present are not chance witnesses, and no mitigating circumstance arises. Appeal dismissed; capital sentence reference answered in the positive and death sentence on two counts confirmed.

Sindh High Court

• Shahla Omer v. Province of Sindh — a revenue entry recorded under a consent order that was later recalled (the recall having attained finality) is rendered invalid and may be cancelled without a fresh hearing under section 53 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967, and allotments under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 made without pending section 2(2) proceedings are void ab initio. Petitions dismissed.
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan — a commercial company limited by guarantee is not an “evacuee trust property” under section 2(1)(d) of the ETPMD Act 1975 absent a section 8 determination by the Chairman ETPB, and nothing may be treated as evacuee property after the 1 January 1957 cut-off in section 3 of the 1957 Act. Petitions disposed of: the 1963 notification suspended, the FIA’s FIR quashed, and the matter referred to the Chairman ETPB for fresh determination within 90 days with the Karachi Cotton Association’s possession protected.