Eleven reportable judgments across the 18, 19 and 21 September 2026 upload window (with 17 September carried forward) — one from the Federal Constitutional Court, three from the Supreme Court, four from the Lahore High Court and three from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Dr. Azhar Khan Jadoon v. Registrar, Peshawar High Court — section 12A of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 is an independent, case-specific source of jurisdiction for a transferee Special Court; the deeming provision attaches to the transferred lis and does not transform the court’s institutional character, nor is jurisdiction determined by the rank of the presiding officer. Leave refused; the Peshawar High Court judgment maintained subject to modification and clarification of its reasoning.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Muhammad Niaz v. Raja Khush Dil Abbasi — Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad are essential conditions of the statutory right of pre-emption, not formalities; a pre-emptor who does not plead and prove failure of the public notice cannot displace the statutory attribution of knowledge, and service of the notice must be proved by the person who effected delivery. Appeal allowed; the pre-emption suit dismissed.
• Collector of Customs, Islamabad v. Javed Iqbal Malik — where a passenger has completed the successive stages of international departure and is intercepted at the final security check, his conduct has passed beyond preparation and constitutes an attempt to smuggle currency; ignorance of the NOC requirement is no defence. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the Tribunal and Islamabad High Court set aside and the confiscation restored (US$40,000).
• Shahzad Ahmad v. The State — section 540 Cr.P.C. may be invoked at any stage and is not barred by the absence of a section 161 statement, and mid-trial summoning of a witness does not automatically require a de novo trial; the remedy must correspond to the prejudice. Leave refused; the trial to proceed with the safeguards of disclosure, time to prepare and full cross-examination.

Lahore High Court

• Muhammad Rizwan v. Federation of Pakistan — the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Code supplements the criminal law and does not bar an inquiry by a competent state agency (NCCIA) into online betting and gambling in cricket; a call-up notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. is not an accusation but a mechanism for gathering information. Petition dismissed; the petitioner directed to cooperate with the inquiry, with a direction that he not be harassed.
• M/s Mughal Iron & Steel v. Metro Metals Northwest — the Article V grounds for refusing a foreign arbitral award are exhaustive; a party who abstains from the arbitration cannot rely on its own non-participation, and public policy is not a route to merits review. Intra-court appeal dismissed; recognition and enforcement of the US (Oregon) award upheld — a Division Bench line matching the Sindh High Court’s TRG International.
• Muhammad Farhan v. The State — a USB said to contain CCTV footage proves nothing where the installation of the cameras is unproved, the recording device is not secured and the maker is not produced (applying Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza). Appeal allowed; conviction set aside, the appellant acquitted and the death sentence not confirmed.
• Muhammad Khalid Rasheed v. The State — a departmental inquiry report is inadmissible in a criminal trial without formal proof, and a departmental finding of negligence negates the mens rea required for criminal breach of trust. Appeal allowed; conviction under section 409 PPC / 5(2) PCA set aside and the court Ahlmad acquitted.

Sindh High Court

• Sindh Revenue Board v. M/s Itecknologi Tracking Services & connected references — default surcharge under section 44 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011 is a strict, compensatory liability attracted on default “whether wilfully or otherwise”; no officer, Commissioner (Appeals) or Tribunal may waive it on grounds of hardship (COVID-19, arithmetical error, withholding arrangements and an in-personam stay all rejected). Question answered in the Board’s favour — the section 44 companion to the section 43 decision in Fumicon Services, completing the scheme.
• Shahida Parveen v. Federation of Pakistan — where the local police could not lawfully investigate PECA offences (exclusive to NCCIA under section 30), the FIR later registered by NCCIA is the first information of those offences and the rule against a second FIR is not attracted; a section 63 Cr.P.C. discharge is a release, not an acquittal, and Article 13(a) requires a prior conviction. Quashment petition dismissed.
• Sayyed Engineers Limited v. Collector of Customs — a declaration of weight wrong by more than half is false in a material particular where goods are assessed on weight, and the credibility of the explanation is a question of fact beyond reference jurisdiction; where the declared value was not rejected, the section 25 valuation safeguards do not arise. Reference dismissed; all four questions answered against the importer and the interim order vacated.