Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 2,435 judgments in total from the Federal Shariat Court.

• Roshan Ali Shah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1476 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →
• Raees Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 585 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2511 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 217 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-29
  Jail appealHeroin recoveryPolice testimonyPublic witnessReasonable doubtBenefit of doubtDiscrepancies in evidenceProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979Acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenged a conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for possession of 50 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the recovery of the contraband. The court held that while police officials are competent witnesses, their testimony, when forming the sole basis of the prosecution case, must be scrutinized with utmost care. The court found significant discrepancies in the police witnesses' accounts regarding the place of recovery and weighing, coupled with their failure to associate public witnesses despite the availability of such persons nearby, and an unexplained delay in dispatching the sample to the Chemical Examiner. These factors collectively created a high degree of doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on police testimony if there are material discrepancies in their evidence?
  • Does the failure to associate public witnesses in recovery proceedings, despite their availability, create reasonable doubt?
  • Can an unexplained delay in dispatching a sample to the Chemical Examiner, coupled with other defects, lead to acquittal?
  • When does the testimony of police officials require utmost care and caution in scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2076 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah alias Nasir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2428 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 769 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-11
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurder referencejoint recoverylast seen evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 411 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to death and imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an initial missing person report, subsequent discovery of a dead body, alleged 'last seen' evidence, joint recovery of ornaments, and motive relating to prior enmity. The Federal Shariat Court examined the record and found multiple material contradictions and infirmities, including unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., untrustworthy 'last seen' testimony, inadmissible joint pointation for recoveries, and an absence of a credible motive or conclusive medical evidence linking the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and death sentences were set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, and the appellants were granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence is riddled with material discrepancies, belated improvements, and inadmissible recoveries, it cannot form the basis of a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint pointation and recovery of articles from multiple accused persons is admissible in evidence under criminal law?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence and delayed F.I.R. riddled with material contradictions?
  • Whether 'last seen' evidence introduced belatedly after a significant delay in reporting can be relied upon without corroboration?
  • What is the effect of material infirmities in the prosecution's circumstantial chain upon a capital sentence and murder reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Murid Hussain vs The State and another1993 MLD 2402 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1939 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1852 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-05
  child witnesscompetency of witnessZina-bil-Jabrattempt to commit Zinapenetrationmedical evidenceHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the offense of Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal questions concern the competency of a child witness to testify and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the completed offense of Zina-bil-Jabr. The Court held that the child witness was competent, as she demonstrated the capacity to understand and rationally answer questions, noting that the term 'tender years' refers to cognitive capacity rather than a specific chronological age. However, regarding the offense, the Court found that medical evidence—specifically the finding that the victim's vagina could not admit a finger—negated the occurrence of full penetration. Consequently, the Court held that penetration is a necessary ingredient for Zina-bil-Jabr, and in its absence, the offense is reduced to an attempt. The conviction was accordingly converted to an attempt to commit Zina under Section 10(3) read with Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child witness of tender age competent to testify if they demonstrate the capacity to understand and answer questions?
  • Does the term 'tender years' in the context of witness competency prescribe a specific age limit?
  • Is penetration an essential ingredient for the conviction of Zina-bil-Jabr?
  • Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained when medical evidence indicates no penetration occurred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 159 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Shafoo vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1948 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Kali and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1072 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs The State1993 MLD 2344 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1993 MLD 2248 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif alias Bhutto vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1839 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-06
  Zina-bil-Jabrrapemedical evidencecorroborationvictim testimonydelay in FIRenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Boota, who was found guilty by the trial court of committing Zina-bil-Jabr under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of the victim, a minor girl, who alleged the appellant raped her in a field, supported by medical evidence confirming recent sexual intercourse and physical injuries consistent with resistance. The appellant denied the charge, citing false implication due to enmity and questioning the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the injuries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical findings of semen and injuries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the delay in reporting did not prejudice the defense, and discharged a suo motu notice regarding the enhancement of the sentence, affirming that sentencing remains within the trial court's discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained on the solitary testimony of the victim if corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does a delay in filing an FIR necessarily invalidate a prosecution case in a rape trial?
  • Is the failure to send the victim's clothing to a chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case when vaginal swabs test positive for semen?
  • Does the appellate court have the discretion to interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court in a suo motu proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1909 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-24
  counterfeit currencypossession of heroinProhibition Orderdestruction of contrabandexpert evidencecriminal appealsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing counterfeit currency and under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing heroin, receiving concurrent sentences. The core legal questions addressed were whether a certificate issued by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of Pakistan regarding counterfeit notes is admissible without examining the maker, and whether the destruction of bulk contraband without the trial court's specific permission vitiates the conviction for the remaining proven quantity. The Federal Shariat Court held that the State Bank Chief Manager's certificate is not covered by section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and requires formal testimony to be admissible, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction under section 489-C. However, the Court held that seeking destruction permission from a magistrate rather than the trial court was a mere irregularity that did not vitiate the proceedings regarding the remaining heroin. Consequently, the conviction for narcotics possession was upheld, though the sentence was reduced.

  Questions settled

  • Is a certificate issued by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of Pakistan regarding counterfeit currency admissible in evidence without examining him as a witness?
  • Does the destruction of bulk contraband narcotics without the express permission of the trial court vitiate the trial and proceedings for the remaining seized quantity?
  • Whether obtaining permission for the destruction of contraband from a magistrate instead of the trial court is an illegality or a mere irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar alias Kala vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 661 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2384 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1953 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-10
  criminal appealnarcoticsheroin recoverychemical examiner reportsafe custody of contrabandbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-11-1992 passed by the Section 30 Magistrate, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years along with stripes and fine. The core legal question in the case relates to the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the safe custody and delayed transmission of the recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner. The Federal Shariat Court held that where prosecution witnesses are silent regarding the safe custody of the contraband during the period between its recovery and its transmission to the expert, and there is unexplained delay in sending the same, the Chemical Examiner's report cannot be relied upon, casting grave doubt on the prosecution case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the chain of custody of the recovered substance is unproven?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt arising from missing links in prosecution evidence entitles the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 234 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 109 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1309 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tauqeer Jehan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1886 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana alias Shabana vs Rana Muhammad Tauhid and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 1837 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamidan Bibi vs The State1993 MLD 2392 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sakina vs The State1993 MLD 2009 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sharif @ Shafoo, vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 55 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-15Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad alias Sooda vs The State1993 MLD 2361 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-17Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 2265 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2377 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mansha Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 246 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Jafar Hussain Shah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1900 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1946 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar alias Gattu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1847 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Haji TM Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1544 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Taj Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 27 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1440 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1993 MLD 2262 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1693 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohiuddin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1849 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Malik Irfani vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islam abad1993 CLC 867 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1465 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-08Read full judgment →
• CI Iftikhar Ahmad Khan and another vs The State1993 MLD 84 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
• Bijar And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1993 Shariat Cases 89 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 655 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Bakht Ali and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1872 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-10
  QazfZina-bil-Jabrfalse accusationgood faithwitness testimonywhipping Haddcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, convicting the appellants under section 7(3) of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly supporting a false charge of Zina-bil-Jabr as witnesses, resulting in sentences of eighty stripes of whipping each. The core legal question revolves around whether an accusation or statement by a witness in a Zina case, made before an authorized person, constitutes Qazf under the law when the original case is dismissed for lack of incriminating evidence, and whether failure to prove an allegation automatically renders a witness liable for Qazf punishment. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that mere failure to substantiate allegations or dismissal of a Zina case due to lack of confidence-inspiring evidence does not amount to Qazf unless there is a specific judicial finding that the witness gave false evidence mala fide, and that the statutory exceptions protect accusations preferred in good faith unless explicitly found false by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere failure of a complainant to prove an allegation of Zina make the witnesses of the said offence liable to Qazf punishment?
  • Whether an accusation of Zina preferred by a witness before an authorized person amounts to Qazf in the absence of a distinct judicial finding that the witness gave false evidence mala fide?
  • Can a conviction under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained when the trial court's judgment in the primary case merely found the evidence not confidence-inspiring without recording a finding of falsity?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 578 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain alias Muhammad Arif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1956 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Anwarul Haque vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 850 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Anwar Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1842 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 84 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1311 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 997 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali and 4 others vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 46 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1714 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fateh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 149 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abbas and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1468 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
• Abaid Ullah Khan and Nazi, Ahmad Bhatti, Aqil-Ur-Rehman and another vs The State and another1993 MLD 2394 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-08-04Read full judgment →
• Talib Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 640 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
• Sub. (Retd.) Allah Dad vs Mukhtar And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2388 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1625 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-19Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Haq vs Mst. Nazima Shaheen And Another1992 P Cr. L J 1026 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Al Imad vs Khalid Mehmood And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2392 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
• Safeer Hussain Qureshi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1072 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Saeed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1817 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-02Read full judgment →
• S.S.M.R. No.1/I of 1991: In the matter of vs N/A1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 518 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
• Rohail Naseem Alias Kala vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1037 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-09-01Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1019 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1299 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2385 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
• Pervaze Masih vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1830 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Hashim vs The State1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 497 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2153 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs The State1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 390 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-22
  Haraabahidentification paradeextra-judicial confessionpolice custodycriminal appealHudood Ordinanceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, convicting the appellant under Section 17(1) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with Section 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and stripes. The core legal questions involved the legality and evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted by the police without a Magistrate, the admissibility and reliability of an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody, and the contradictions in conviction under Section 17(1) where property was allegedly stolen. The Federal Shariat Court held that identification of unknown culprits arranged by the police without a Magistrate is valueless, that extra-judicial confessions made to police lack evidentiary value without independent corroboration, and that a conviction under Section 17(1) of the Ordinance is contradictory when property is alleged to have been taken away. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted by the police without the supervision of a Magistrate when the accused was previously unknown to the witnesses?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession made to police officers while in custody form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under Section 17(1) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 when the prosecution case alleges that property was actually robbed and taken away?
  • Does the performance of Tazkiyahtul Shuhood cure fundamental defects in the prosecution's proof regarding identity and extra-judicial confessions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L. J 183 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 636 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2378 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Alias Akhtar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1857 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2372 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1058 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-28
  Zina-bil-JabrQatal-i-Amdpubertyadultocular testimonymedical evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kasur, convicting the appellant under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death alongside a reference for its confirmation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony, the corroboration of medical and circumstantial evidence, the applicability of the law regarding the definition of an adult and puberty, and the validity of recoveries made during investigation. The Federal Shariat Court held that the eyewitness testimony of the complainant and another witness was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and promptly lodged, leaving no room for false implication. The Court held that an accused is considered an adult under the Ordinance upon attaining the prescribed age or puberty, which was medically established. The appeal was dismissed, the convictions were upheld, and the death sentence was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies between the statements of the complainant and an eye-witness are sufficient to discard trustworthy ocular testimony?
  • What constitutes an 'adult' for the purposes of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 in the absence of conclusive age proof?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from an open cattle-shed upon the pointation of an accused require strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a pre-emption suit decided in favour of a complainant's family establishes a motive for false implication by the complainant against the accused party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Butt vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1845 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaoue vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1973 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate High Court, Lahore AndAnother1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 501 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-14
  Federal Shariat CourtIslamic bankingHouse Building Finance CorporationMusharakainterest-free loanRibarepugnancy to Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Federal Shariat Court addresses twelve Shariat petitions challenging various provisions of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952, and its amending Ordinance of 1979 as being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question involved whether the substitution of interest-based loaning with a joint ownership and rent-sharing (Musharaka) system complied with Islamic injunctions, and whether specific statutory provisions regarding returns, borrowing powers, rental assessments, past loans, and recovery mechanisms contained elements of prohibited Riba. The court held that while the Musharaka financing scheme is generally in consonance with Islamic principles, certain provisions containing references to interest, ambiguous returns, one-sided rental assessments, and past interest-bearing loans are repugnant to Islam. The court directed necessary legislative amendments and deletions by a specified date to bring the impugned provisions in conformity with the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, laying down the principle that all financial transactions and borrowing powers of statutory corporations must be strictly interest-free and equitable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 relating to interest-bearing borrowing powers are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the system of joint ownership and rent sharing (Musharaka) adopted by the House Building Finance Corporation comply with Islamic principles?
  • Whether past interest-bearing loans granted before the 1979 amendments can continue to be governed by terms allowing interest under Islamic law?
  • Can provisions allowing the unilateral and one-sided assessment of rental income by a financing corporation be sustained under Islamic commercial law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Balla vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2230 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Alias Cheena vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1294 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan vs The State1992 P C r. L J 1944 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 376 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Rajo Mai vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1011 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarat Bibi And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 158 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-10-23
  ZinaOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979FIR registrationMurassalabenefit of doubtpolice malpracticeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly committing Zina. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's eye-witness testimony and the procedural legality of the FIR registration process. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with material contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the site of the incident and the timing of the FIR registration. The Court found the prosecution's reliance on a Murassala drafted outside the police station highly suspicious, noting that such practices allow for police manipulation and are contrary to fundamental principles of justice. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that the practice of drafting a Murassala before formal FIR registration is dangerous, undermines the integrity of the investigation, and creates a presumption of mala fides, necessitating strict judicial scrutiny of such procedures to prevent fabricated cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the practice of drafting a Murassala before registering a formal FIR violate fundamental principles of justice?
  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the occurrence is riddled with material contradictions?
  • Is the registration of an FIR after deliberation and consultation with the police sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mumtaz Industries And Other vs Industrial Development Bank1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 360 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Au And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 165 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 155 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 998 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-01-29
  Section 30 MagistrateProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979jurisdiction of Magistratetransfer of criminal casescurable irregularitiesevidence recorded by predecessornarcotics offense
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four criminal appeals against convictions for possession of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, to exercise powers under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and questioned the legality of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants based on evidence recorded by the Magistrate. The Court held that the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, did not automatically omit Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the necessary provincial notifications were never issued, thus Section 30 remains intact. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the conferment of Section 30 powers on the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, was valid. Regarding the trial procedure, the Court ruled that the transfer of cases from a Section 30 Magistrate to an Additional Sessions Judge, and the subsequent reliance on evidence recorded by the former, did not vitiate the convictions, as any technical irregularity is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, provided no prejudice is shown to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 automatically omit Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from operation?
  • Can a Senior Civil Judge be validly invested with powers under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a conviction by an Additional Sessions Judge based on evidence recorded by a predecessor Magistrate legally sustainable?
  • Does a technical defect in the transfer of a case from a Magistrate to a Sessions Judge vitiate the subsequent judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Bafiadur vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2238 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-01-07
  surety bondbail bond forfeiturecontractual interpretationtransfer of casestrict constructioncriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which forfeited the petitioner's surety bond and imposed a penalty after the accused failed to appear in court. The petitioner had stood surety for his son in a case under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, specifically for the Court of the Additional City Magistrate. Following the transfer of the case to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, the accused failed to appear, leading to the forfeiture of the bond. The core legal question was whether a surety bond executed for a specific court remains valid and enforceable upon the transfer of the case to another court without a fresh bond being furnished. The Federal Shariat Court held that a surety bond is a contract of a civil nature and must be construed strictly. Since the bond was expressly limited to the Additional City Magistrate's court, it stood exhausted upon the case's transfer. Consequently, the Court set aside the forfeiture order and directed the refund of the deposited amount, establishing that surety obligations do not automatically extend to successor courts without express provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety bond executed for a specific court remain valid after the case is transferred to another court?
  • Should a surety bond be construed strictly as a contract of a civil nature?
  • Is a surety liable for the absence of an accused in a court other than the one specified in the bail bond?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nadeem Alias Pappi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1799 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-07
  sodomyunnatural offenceHudood lawsminor offenderpubertyFederal Shariat Courtprovincial legislation inconsistencyPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for committing sodomy on a young boy and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment, fine, and whipping. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant, being a minor, was protected from punishment under the Sindh Children Act, 1955, and whether the offence of sodomy fell under the Zina Ordinance or Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Federal Shariat Court held that the provisions of the Federal Zina Ordinance prevail over the provincial Sindh Children Act due to constitutional inconsistency and specific non-obstante clauses, and that an act of sodomy constitutes an offence under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 rather than Zina under the Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that trial courts should properly alter convictions for sodomy from the Zina Ordinance to Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 while maintaining applicability of federal criminal legislation over provincial child protection statutes regarding adults who have attained puberty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Sindh Children Act, 1955 override the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in cases involving minor offenders who have attained puberty?
  • Does an act of sodomy fall within the definition of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 or under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can an accused charged under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be legally convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Masih And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1304 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
• Inderlal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1815 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
• In Re: the Transfer of Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972 (Act XIII of 1972) vs1992 PLD Federal Shairat Court 515 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →