Fifteen reportable judgments across the 31 October to 4 November 2026 upload window (Sunday 1 November excluded), with stragglers swept from 29 and 30 October — four from the Federal Constitutional Court, five from the Supreme Court, three 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

• Balochistan Trading Company v. Government of Balochistan — the first systematic exposition of the Federal Constitutional Court’s review jurisdiction under Article 175G read with the Federal Constitutional Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2026: the grounds of review are analogous to Order 47 CPC, a non-speaking order refusing leave furnishes no ground for review, and where leave is refused the High Court’s judgment does not merge into the refusal; Supreme Court judgments are persuasive but not binding on this Court. Review dismissed and the security of Rs. 50,000 forfeited under Rule 6.
• Abdul Latif v. Inspector General of Police — an antecedent FIR culminating in acquittal before recruitment cannot ipso jure disqualify a candidate; mechanical invocation of the FIR under Rule 12.18 of the Police Rules 1934, without independent evaluation, is an arbitrary exercise of discretion attracting malice in law and offending Articles 4, 10A, 18 and 25. Petition converted into appeal and allowed, with six guiding principles issued for antecedent verification.
• Lachman Das v. Province of Sindh — an application under section 12(2) CPC to set aside a consent decree for fraud is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 (three years from the accrual of the right to apply), section 18 postponing commencement only where fraud actually kept the applicant from knowledge, which must be specifically pleaded; a court may not remit for a trial merely because fraud is alleged where the record suffices. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the trial court’s dismissal restored.
• Mst. Anwari v. Provincial Collector — an executing court cannot modify, alter or go behind a decree which has attained finality, and consolidation determinations that have attained finality are not ordinarily amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, the assignment of Killa and Khasra numbers lying within the exclusive province of the revenue authorities; a full restatement of the doctrine of finality. Leave refused.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Jawad Abbasi v. Director General Intelligence Bureau — off-duty conduct of sufficient gravity may constitute misconduct under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 2020 where it bears a sufficient nexus with the service; departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct, an acquittal does not of itself undo misconduct independently established, and where action rests solely on nomination in a criminal case the FIR cannot sustain a penalty. Leave refused; compulsory retirement maintained.
• Bashir Ahmed Malik v. The Director, ANF — a Special Judge under section 32 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977 may only declare that property was acquired by smuggling; a finding that property was acquired through drug proceeds requires a trial before a Special Judge notified under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, a bona fide purchaser in possession is protected by Article 24, and section 34 (option to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture) is mandatory where an indivisible property is only partly forfeited. Judgments of 2003 and 2008 rectified under section 40 and Article 187; properties released to the appellants.
• Amjad Ali v. Dr. Taqdees Naqaish — criminal medical negligence under section 319 PPC requires proof of a duty, a breach causing death, and that the breach amounted to gross negligence; the standard is that of the ordinarily competent practitioner, conduct sufficient for civil negligence does not without more sustain a prosecution, and section 88 PPC affords a real but not absolute protection. Leave refused; the acquittal under section 249-A CrPC maintained.
• Qaiser Mehmood v. The State — a witness cannot be given up once examination-in-chief has begun, the triggering event being its commencement rather than its completion, after which the adverse party’s absolute right of cross-examination under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 attaches; relationship alone is no ground to discard the natural testimony of a son and brother. J.P. and Crl.P.L.A. dismissed; conviction and life sentence maintained and enhancement refused.
• Mst. Arshi v. Mst. Nissa Farhan Memon — the appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC is a harsh and extraordinary remedy requiring a good prima facie title (unlike a temporary injunction, which needs only a fair question), to be made where it is “just and convenient” to preserve property in imminent danger; section 115 CPC is supervisory and the principle of congruence bars relief not prayed. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the miscellaneous appeal restored for fresh decision within forty-five days.

Lahore High Court

• Salman Ahmad Suleman v. The State — a prosecution instituted on a police report must be conducted by the Public Prosecutor under section 265A CrPC, privately instructed counsel acting only under his direction under section 493; a prosecutor who gave up a surviving injured witness on the instructions of the complainant’s private counsel committed a flagrant subversion of statutory mandates. Appeal allowed and the appellant acquitted, with directions to the Prosecutor General, Punjab and disciplinary action ordered.
• Mayoon v. The State — the first construction of the Punjab Child Marriage Restraint Ordinance 2026: section 5 deliberately uses “cohabitation” rather than “rape” and prescribes a specific punishment, so the addition of section 376(iii) PPC without fresh material is unwarranted, a special law prevails over the general law, and the earlier Bulugh precedents cannot be applied after the Ordinance. Bail granted, the offences falling outside the prohibitory clause.
• Dr. Mohi-ud-Din Dilshad v. Mst. Asia Munir — conduct found unprofessional does not satisfy the definition of harassment in section 2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 unless its nature, context and effect bring it within the statute, and the absence of precise particulars of date, time and place does not defeat a complaint concerning a course of conduct; constitutional jurisdiction does not permit the Court to enhance or reduce a penalty on its own assessment. Both petitions dismissed.

Sindh High Court

• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Hyderabad Development Authority — a development authority established by provincial statute falls within section 49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and is not Government for the purposes of Article 165, the exemption belonging to a government and not to a separate juristic person even if wholly owned by it; SRB v. CAA concerned provincial sales tax and does not govern federal income tax liability. Reference applications allowed; the appeals restored to the Tribunal to decide the remaining grounds.
• Muhammad Bachal Khokhar v. Khawand Dino — the Senior Member, Board of Revenue cannot use suo motu revision under section 153 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 to undo the Board’s own final order passed on its judicial side; an appellate court that is the final court of fact must comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, and remand may be dispensed with where the evidence is complete and the decisive question is one of law. Revision allowed and the suit, pending since 1980, decreed in part.
• Muhammad Anwar Ahmed Siddiqui v. Mst. Izza Fakhri — among the first judgments to address an allegation that documentary evidence was generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence: such an allegation stands on no better footing than any other challenge to authenticity and must be supported by legally admissible material pursued at trial; the quantum of a minor’s maintenance is measured by the child’s needs and the father’s means, and visitation by the welfare of the minor. Constitutional petition dismissed.