LAHORE: A judicial magistrate on Friday granted the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) a further four-day physical remand of the prime suspect in a Rs35 billion fraud involving the online sale of counterfeit US postage stamps.

The NCCIA produced suspect Faheem Akram and his co-suspect, Naeem, before the court after their previous four-day remand expired.

The investigating officer (IO) sought further custody of the suspects for interrogation.

Magistrate Naeem Wattoo granted the agency’s request and extended the physical remand of both suspects by four days.

The IO was directed to produce the suspects again on Nov 3.

The initial investigation revealed that the suspect had allegedly been operating a website since August 2023 through which he sold more than five million counterfeit US postage labels online.

According to the US Department of Justice, Akram was indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida in September 2026 over the alleged sale of more than 5.1 million counterfeit postage labels, which prosecutors say caused losses of more than $126 million to the US Postal Service.

US prosecutors allege that the website sold the labels for around $2 each, regardless of the weight, size or destination of a package. A US court order authorised the seizure and shutdown of the website.

The NCCIA had arrested the suspect, a resident of Khanewal, in Lahore.

Money trail

In a press conference on Oct 20, NCCIA’s Lahore Zone Additional Director Atif Ameer said that 16 bank accounts had been used in the scam. Seven of the accounts were operated by the suspect, five by his brother, two by his wife, and one each by his sister and aunt.

He said the agency had expanded the investigation across several parts of the country.

“Eight special teams were formed in Punjab, Islamabad and Sindh to trace the suspect and investigate the network,” he said and added the teams conducted raids at 35 locations and questioned 47 people as part of the investigation.

“Investigators also employed digital and forensic techniques to establish the suspect’s movements and identify people associated with the operation.”

Ameer added that investigators analysed 122 call-data records, 50 IMEI-tracking reports and audio and video recordings from 120 cameras.

“Artificial intelligence and other modern technological tools were also used during the investigation. A locator operation continued for 10 days as investigators attempted to establish the suspect’s whereabouts and trace his activities,” he said.

The NCCIA said the major focus of the investigation was the financial trail generated by the online sale of the counterfeit stamps.

“We are examining transactions conducted through the 16 bank accounts and attempting to determine the flow of funds between the accounts allegedly belonging to the suspect and his relatives.

“The involvement of family members is also being examined as part of the investigation, particularly the alleged use of their bank accounts in connection with the online business,” the additional director said.

He said the role of other individuals in operating the website, processing orders, receiving payments or distributing the counterfeit stamps was also being probed.

“Investigators are also working to establish the full scale of the operation and verify the volume and value of the transactions,” he said.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday directed the counsel for Noreen Niazi, sister of former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan, to file a separate miscellaneous application seeking medical treatment and family meetings.

On Wednesday evening, Noreen was shifted to the Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) following her deteriorating health conditions, on the recommendation of the doctors of the Kot Lakhpat Jail, where she has been detained.

Justice Abher Gul Khan issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by Sakeena Niazi challenging the extension of the preventive detention of PTI founder Imran Khan’s two sisters, Noreen and Dr Uzma Khan.

The judge asked the petitioner’s counsel whether an application had been filed seeking permission for medical treatment and meetings with family members.

Advocate Rana Mudassar Umar, counsel for the petitioner, replied that an application to this effect had been submitted to the deputy commissioner.

The judge directed the counsel to also file a separate civil miscellaneous application with the court. The counsel argued that there was no lawful justification for extending the detention of the two women.

He said Noreen, 70, had never suffered from a heart ailment before.

Questioning the circumstances that led to her hospitalisation, Advocate Umar asked what kind of pressure had been exerted on her during detention that she had to be taken to hospital.

He argued that the fresh detention orders were replicas of the previous ones, with only the dates changed. He further argued that suspending the detention notification would pave the way for the women’s release.

PTI Secretary General Advocate Salman Akram Raja, who was also present in court, claimed that Noreen was ill and had been shifted to the hospital’s intensive care unit.

However, neither her family members nor her lawyer had been allowed to meet her, he added. He said he was unaware whether she was still in hospital or had been shifted back to jail.

Asked whether the home secretary, who was abroad, had returned to the country, Additional Advocate General Nasir Chohan said he would check and inform the court.

Another petition, filed by Shahrez Khan challenging the detention of his mother, Aleema Khan, is yet to be fixed for a hearing.

Imran’s sisters were detained by authorities in September, under Section 3 of the MPO, as the PTI geared up for a planned protest march towards Islamabad.

Their detention was ordered for 30 days and would have expired on Oct 19 for Aleema and Oct 20 for Uzma and Noreen. However, they remained in jail, and the government later informed the LHC that their detentions had been extended on Oct 7.

On Sept 24, the LHC had turned down a request to immediately suspend the preventive detention notifications issued against Noreen and Dr Uzma.

Earlier this month, Imran’s cousin, Qasim Zaman, was also taken into custody when he went to Adiala jail to meet the ex-prime minister.

The detention had come amid reports of a crackdown on the PTI ahead of its countrywide protest and march to Islamabad, which the party had called to demand Imran’s release from jail and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that merely uploading an appellate order to the Federal Board of Revenue’s (FBR) Inland Revenue Information System (IRIS) does not constitute valid service under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

An LHC division bench comprising Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf and Justice Anwaar Hussain decided three connected reference applications led by Tahir Mehmood.

The applications challenged three orders of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals as time-barred on the ground that uploading the orders to IRIS constituted sufficient service.

In one case, the taxpayer argued that Covid-19 and quarantine following a foreign trip had prevented him from accessing the portal. In the other two cases, the taxpayers said they learned of the Commissioner (Appeals)’ orders only after receiving recovery notices in April 2026, months after the orders had been passed.

Justice Anwaar Hussain, who authored the judgement, held that Section 218(1)(d) of the ordinance recognises electronic service only when carried out in the prescribed manner.

He observed that Rule 74 of the Income Tax Rules limits an electronic addr­e­ss to a fax number or an email address and requi­res confirmation of transmission.

IRIS, by contrast, is an internal, web-based workflow system for tax administration, the judge noted, adding that placing an order in a taxpayer’s account does not establish its transmission to an electronic address as required under the rule.

The judge distinguished between accessibility and service, observing that an order may be accessible wi­­thout having been served in accordance with the law.

He further held that the limitation period could not begin from an event that the law did not recognise as its starting point.

Rejecting the department’s argument that Rule 74 could not restrict the parent provision, the jud­ge said the requirement of service in the “prescribed manner” was part of the ordinance itself.

The judge also dismissed the contention that taxpayers were required to routinely monitor IRIS.

The judge said the dep­artment could not dismiss the pandemic-related exp­lanation, as the corre­ct­n­ess of the tribunal’s conclusion involved a question of law that the high court was competent to examine.

Observing that technology was an instrument of statutory administration ra­­ther than an independent source of statutory au­­thority, the judge said mo­­d­ernisation could not disp­ense with legal safeguards.

The court referred to rulings of the Peshawar and Islamabad high courts and the Delhi High Court, as well as Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution.

The bench set aside the impugned orders and dire­cted the tribunal to decide the appeals afresh on merit.

Published in Dawn, October 30th, 2026

LAHORE: Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani resigned on Wednesday, citing personal reasons, including health concerns following a recent surgery, and “reasons of conscience”.

In his resignation letter to the president of Pakistan, a copy of which is available with Dawn, Justice Kayani said it had been a privilege for him to serve at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and LHC.

“These years of judicial service remain among the most meaningful and fulfilling of my life. During my tenure, I have disposed of more than 23,000 cases of various categories, endeavouring always to uphold the Constitution, safeguard fundamental rights, and administer justice without fear or favour,” he continued.

However, he added, “in my considered view, the changes introduced through the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments have compromised the independence and institutional integrity of the high courts”.

“I have witnessed what I regard as the executive’s growing control over judicial institutions, extending to the appointment and transfer of judges. Such interference has, in my assessment, seriously eroded public confidence in judicial independence and the fairness of the judicial process.”

Justice Kayani stated that of particular concern was the plight of the ordinary litigant, “who is the principal stakeholder in the justice system, yet whose suffering continues to deepen”.

The needs of those seeking justice had too often been neglected, while other actors had become the “beneficiaries of a system intended to serve them”, he said.

“In these circumstances, my conscience does not permit me to continue on the bench. This is a painful decision, but it reflects my conviction that judicial office must remain inseparable from independence, fidelity to the Constitution, and the protection of human dignity.

“I, therefore, consider that the time has come for me to lay down my robes and return to legal practice, through which I intend to continue serving the people, protecting their rights, and promoting legal awareness,” he added.

The judge ended his letter expressing gratitude to “my teachers, fellow judges and family members for their guidance and steadfast support, including during the deliberations that led to this decision”.

His resignation has come years before the date of his retirement — Feb 10, 2032.

He hails from Islamabad and was serving at the IHC before his transfer to the LHC in April. He was assigned to the LHC’s principal seat in Lahore.

Despite being a senior judge of the LHC, he was not assigned to any division bench.

Justice Kayani previously served as the senior puisne judge of the IHC and was expecting to be elevated to the post of the high court’s chief justice. However, the transfer of incumbent IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from the LHC, along with two other judges from the Sindh and Balochistan high courts, prompted him to challenge the inter-high court transfers.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench upheld the transfers to the IHC, including that of Justice Dogar. The decision, however, triggered a broader legal battle.

Justice Kayani and other senior IHC judges approached the Supreme Court to challenge the administrative powers exercised by Chief Justice Dogar. They alleged that the office had been turned into a “monocracy” and that judges could be excluded from the roster at will.

Following his own transfer to the LHC, Justice Kayani lost his seniority and was placed 10th on the high court’s seniority list.

His resignation came days after he returned to the twin cities to preside over a single bench at the Rawalpindi registry following a reshuffle at the high court.

The new duty roster assigned him only to a single bench at the Rawalpindi registry despite his previous position as the IHC’s senior puisne judge.

Justice Kayani was also one of the six IHC judges who had accused the country’s intelligence apparatus of interference in judicial affairs, including attempts to pressure judges through abduction and torture of their relatives and secret surveillance inside their homes in a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members in March 2024.

Education and career

According to information available on the LHC’s website, Justice Kayani completed his early education at FG Boys High School in Islamabad and pursued higher education at FG College for Men. He graduated in 1989.

The judge earned his LLB from the University of Punjab in 1994, followed by an MA degree in Political Science in 1996, an LLM from Karachi University in 2003 and a MSc in Pakistan Studies in 2005.

He also has postgraduate diploma in human rights from Peshawar University in collaboration with the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights, Oslo University.

Justice Kayani was enrolled as an advocate of the district courts in 1995 and ascended to the high court in 1997 and the Supreme Court in 2009.

He was appointed as an IHC judge on Dec 23, 2015 and transferred to the LHC on April 29 this year.

The judge also served as the joint secretary of the Islamabad District Bar Association from 1998 to 1999, general secretary of the Islamabad District Bar Association from 2002 to 2003 and the president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association from 2013 to 2014.

“He has presided over significant cases, particularly those related to enforced disappearances. Justice Kayani has advocated for legislative reforms, including proposing strict penalties for enforced disappearances, reflecting his commitment to justice and the rule of law,” the website says.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that an offer to settle a civil dispute through a “special oath” on the Holy Quran, coupled with a condition of divorce if the oath is false, is not a lawful offer.

Justice Anwaar Hussain issued the ruling allowing a civil revision filed by Muhammad Azam Khan against Akhtar Khan and others.

During a pending appeal before an appellate court, the petitioner had offered in August 2023 to have the matter decided by an oath on the Holy Quran taken by the opposing side, with a condition that the oath-taker’s wife would stand divorced if the oath proved false.

On Aug 22, the respondents appeared before the appellate court and expressed willingness to take the oath, while the petitioner said he did not wish to proceed.

Says divorce clause renders special oath offer unlawful; sets aside order refusing withdrawal of special oath offer

He formally applied to withdraw the offer on Aug 24, when the respondents accepted the oath but rejected the divorce condition.

The appellate court dismissed his withdrawal application in September 2023, ruling that the offer had been accepted.

It also directed that the oath be taken on the Holy Quran alone, holding the divorce stipulation contrary to public policy.

Justice Hussain held that the appellate court erred.

He maintained a special oath is not a mere private contract but a procedure governed by the Oaths Act, 1873.

Section 8 of the Act permits only oaths that are not repugnant to justice or decency and do not affect any third person.

A condition tying a perjury penalty to the oath-taker’s wife’s divorce violated both limits, the judge said.

The judge noted that, even if the offer was valid, the respondents’ reply was not absolute.

Assisting the court as amicus curiae, Barrister Awais Arshad, submitted that an offer for special oath must be examined not only under the 1873 Act, but also in the light of the principles governing offer, acceptance and revocation under the Contract Act, 1872.

He said acceptance does not automatically follow an offer and, in the present case, where the petitioner expressed his intention to withdraw the offer during the same proceedings in which the respondents conveyed their acceptance, it cannot be presumed that a concluded agreement had come into existence.

Justice Hussain ruled that a court cannot strike out an objectionable condition and enforce the rest against a party who never assented to the altered arrangement.

The judge also found that the order sheet of the relevant hearing did not establish whether the petitioner’s refusal came before or after the respondents’ willingness.

He further noted that a claim that one respondent had travelled from abroad specifically for the oath collapsed when his passport was summoned and the counsel acknowledged he was already in Pakistan.

The judge allowed the petition and set aside the appellate court’s order that had refused to let the petitioner withdraw the offer.

The judge directed the appellate court to decide the appeal on its merits without treating the proposed oath as binding on the petitioner.

Published in Dawn, October 28th, 2026

LAHORE: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Tuesday rejected a police request for further physical remand of PTI leader Hammad Azhar in the Jinnah House attack case and sent him to jail on judicial remand.

Sarwar Road police had booked several PTI leaders and workers on charges of attacking and vandalising Jinnah House during the May 9, 2023 protests against the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan.

According to his family, Azhar was arrested on Sept 5. However, police said the next day they were unaware of his arrest, and he was produced before an ATC on Sept 7. His initial 21-day physical remand was extended at least twice.

Subsequently, upon the completion of the latest 12-day remand, the PTI leader was presented before ATC Judge Sardar Muhammad Akram Khan on Tuesday.

The investigating officer sought further physical remand of the former finance minister, stating that the police wanted to conduct a polygraph test, also known as a lie detector test.

However, Azhar’s counsel, Barrister Abuzar Salman Niazi, argued that a polygraph test required the suspect’s consent.

He argued that according to a Lahore High Court judgment, the procedure was to be conducted during judicial remand.

The lawyer said the suspect was also required to make a statement before a magistrate indicating whether he wished to undergo the test.

Azhar told the court that he did not want to undergo the test if the law allowed him to refuse it. He said a suspect should not be punished for the prosecution’s alleged lack of knowledge about the legal requirements.

After hearing arguments from the prosecution and the defence over the proposed polygraph test, Judge Akram dismissed the police request for further physical remand and sent Azhar to jail under judicial custody.

Barrister Niazi hailed the verdict, writing on X that his client’s “50-day physical remand finally ends” and that he was sent to Kot Lakhpat jail.

Azhar served as a federal minister for multiple portfolios during the PTI government, including finance, industries and energy.

In the aftermath of the May 2023 riots, when the state launched a crackdown against the party leadership, he had gone into hiding and reappeared in public a year later, on May 22, 2024.

In 2025, he reiterated his decision to step down as the president of the PTI’s Punjab chapter, citing a lack of access to Imran.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday disposed of a petition seeking the release of PTI founder Imran Khan’s three sisters after the Punjab government informed the court that their preventive detention had been extended for another 30 days.

An assistant advocate general of Punjab told Justice Abher Gul Khan, who has been holding hearings on the petition, that the government had approved a further 30-day detention of Aleema Khan, Dr Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi on the recommendation of the Lahore deputy commissioner.

The law officer also submitted a report on behalf of the home secretary and said the detention period had been extended on Oct 7.

Imran’s sisters — Aleema, Noreen and Uzma — were detained by authorities in September, under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, as the PTI geared up for a planned protest march towards Islamabad. Their detention was ordered for 30 days and expired on Oct 19 for Aleema and Oct 20 for Uzma and Noreen, the petitioner’s counsel had said at the previous hearing.

Today, counsel Rana Mudassar Umar requested the court to order the recovery of the three women and their production before the court.

However, Justice Khan observed that while the deputy commissioner had issued the detention notifications, but the petitioner had not made the official a respondent in the petition.

The judge held that the court could not issue an order beyond the scope of the petition.

The judge disposed of the petition in light of the home secretary’s report.

Aleema’s son, Shahrez, had filed the petition alleging that the three sisters remained confined at Kot Lakhpat jail despite the end of their initial 30-day detention orders on Oct 19 for Aleema and 20 for Noreen and Uzma.

The petition stated that the women were taken into custody in September under Section 3 of the MPO, 1960. Aleema was detained on Sept 20, while Uzma and Noreen were detained a day later.

The petitioner argued that the continuous detention beyond the notified period was unlawful, that the sisters were not wanted in any criminal case and that preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law.

It asked the court to order the sisters’ immediate release and that they be produced before the court.