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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Air League of Piac Employees through President vs Federation of Pakistan, M_O. Labour and Manpower Division Islamabad and others2011 PLC 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-02
  Industrial Relations Act 2008sunset lawtemporary legislationEighteenth Constitutional AmendmentConcurrent Legislative Listrevival of repealed lawsNational Industrial Relations Commissionlabor laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking a declaration that the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 stood protected until June 30, 2011, by virtue of Article 270-AA of the Constitution following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, and that proceedings for determining collective bargaining agents should continue. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, being a temporary statute (or sunset law) containing an inbuilt expiry date of April 30, 2010 under section 87(3), survived the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, and whether its expiry automatically revived previously repealed legislation such as the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 ceased to be in force by efflux of time on April 30, 2010, in accordance with section 87(3), and that neither section 6 of the General Clauses Act nor Article 264 of the Constitution served to revive earlier repealed statutes like the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The key principle laid down is that temporary statutes lapse strictly by their own operational terms, and general saving clauses regarding repeals do not breathe new life into expired temporary legislation or prior repealed laws when legislative competence shifts to the provinces following the constitutional abolition of the concurrent legislative list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 stood protected beyond 30th April 2010 by virtue of Article 270-AA of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the expiry of a temporary statute by its own inbuilt sunset provision automatically revive previously repealed legislation under section 6 of the General Clauses Act or Article 264 of the Constitution?
  • What is the effect of the omission of the Concurrent Legislative List through the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment on the legislative competence of the Federal Government regarding labor and trade unions?
  • Whether procedural labor laws and changes of forum operate retrospectively during an interregnum period?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Jan vs Nasrullah and others2012 PLJ SC 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-09-21
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictiontransfer of caseprevious enmitydefinition of terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court challenged a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan which had dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition and affirmed an Anti-Terrorism Court's refusal to transfer a murder case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether an incident of murder and assault arising from previous enmity between private parties, without any design to create terror or general insecurity, falls within the ambit of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that since the occurrence stemmed from personal enmity and lacked the essential elements of creating a sense of fear or insecurity in society, the case was not triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court laid down the principle that private disputes and murders motivated by previous personal enmity, absent the statutory ingredients of terrorism, must be tried by ordinary courts rather than special anti-terrorism courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder resulting from a personal vendetta or previous enmity between private parties fall within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether an offence lacking the element of creating fear, panic, or insecurity in society can be tried by a Special Judge under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan A. Khawaja vs The State2012 PLD Supreme Court 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-08-08
  contempt of courtjudgment implementationprime ministerexecutive defianceconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from the implementation proceedings concerning the directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 177 and 178 of the judgment in Dr. Mobashir Hassan's case, which the former Prime Minister failed to comply with, leading to his conviction for contempt and disqualification. The successor Prime Minister, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, similarly failed to implement the said directions or submit a compliance report despite repeated opportunities and assurances given by the Attorney-General for Pakistan. The core legal question was whether an implementation bench could revisit or go behind a finalized judgment and whether the current Prime Minister's continued failure to comply with the court's explicit directions warranted contempt proceedings. The Court held that an implementation bench cannot go behind a concluded and final judgment, and rejected the Federal Government's plea that the judgments were un-implementable. Consequently, the Court initiated contempt proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice to the Prime Minister under section 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The key principle laid down is that an implementation bench cannot review or revisit a final judgment of the court, and willful defiance of court directions by executive authorities constitutes contempt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an implementation bench go behind a concluded and final judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Whether failure by the Prime Minister to implement directions contained in a finalized judgment warrants the initiation of contempt proceedings?
  • Under which legal provisions can a show-cause notice for contempt be issued to the Prime Minister of Pakistan for non-compliance with court orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Thal Development through Eaco Bhakkar etc. vs Ali2012 PLJ SC 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  resumption of landcivil court jurisdictionopportunity of hearingrevisional jurisdictioncolonizationconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal assails the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a civil revision was allowed and the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the respondent's declaratory suit against a resumption order were set aside. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent was denied an opportunity of hearing prior to the resumption of his leased land and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under the relevant statutes. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding lack of notice suffered from material misreading of the record, as official documents proved ample notice and hearings were given, and further held that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The appeal was allowed, restoring the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, and affirming that concurrent factual findings based on proper evidence cannot be interfered with lightly in revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar of jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is attracted when an order is passed within the competence and jurisdiction of the Colonization Officer without mala fide?
  • Can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below in the absence of a jurisdictional defect, material irregularity, or misreading of record?
  • Does the availability of an appeal under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 implicitly bar the jurisdiction of the civil court?
  • Whether the consent or concession of a counsel can confer or take away the statutory jurisdiction of a court to determine the bar of its own jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Thal Development through Eaco Bhakkar and others vs Ali Muhammad2012 PLJ SC 440, 2012 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-03-06
  Civil appealLand resumptionDeclaratory suitJurisdiction of Civil CourtColonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912Audi alteram partemRevisional jurisdictionAlternative remedyLease agreementCivil Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a civil revision, setting aside concurrent lower court findings and decreeing a declaratory suit against a land resumption order. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent was afforded due notice and opportunity of hearing before the resumption order, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the lower courts' decisions. The Court found that the respondent had, in fact, received multiple notices and opportunities for hearing, contrary to the High Court's finding. It held that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as the resumption order was within the competent authority's jurisdiction and free from inherent defects or mala fide. Furthermore, the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, which was not availed, impliedly barred the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is for correcting jurisdictional errors, not re-appreciating evidence where concurrent findings are based on proper assessment.

  Read full judgment →
• Abrarulhaq Shami, Deputy Secretary, Establishment. Division, Islamabad and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad2012 C.L.R. 1253, 2012 PLJ SC 836, 2012 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-06-11
  Intra Court AppealPetition for Leave to AppealProcedural technicalityRemandLimitationMaintainabilityAppellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court. The core legal question was whether these petitions, which were technically incompetent because the proper remedy was an Intra Court Appeal (ICA), could be converted into ICAs and remanded to the High Court for adjudication, rather than being dismissed. The Supreme Court held that it possesses the authority to convert such petitions into ICAs to prevent unnecessary procedural delays and ministerial work, particularly where the initial filing was based on a bona fide mistake or legal misunderstanding. The Court emphasized that technicalities of procedure should not impede the administration of justice. Consequently, the petitions were ordered to be treated as Intra Court Appeals, with the High Court directed to decide them in accordance with the law, including addressing any issues regarding the limitation period for filing such appeals. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts may bypass strict procedural formalities to ensure the substantive determination of cases when the interests of justice so require.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an Intra Court Appeal by the Supreme Court?
  • Is an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 appealable via an Intra Court Appeal?
  • Should an incompetent petition for leave to appeal be dismissed or treated as a competent appeal if filed within the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar-ul-Haq Shami, Deputy Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet2012 C.L.R. 1253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-06-11
  Intra-Court AppealPetition for leave to appealProcedural technicalityRemandMaintainabilityLimitationCondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a High Court judgment by filing petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether these petitions, which were technically incompetent because the proper remedy was an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) before the High Court, could be converted into ICAs and remanded for adjudication. The Supreme Court held that dismissing such petitions on purely technical grounds, when the error stemmed from legal advice or procedural confusion, would be oppressive. Relying on precedents like Muhammad Anis v. Abdul Haseeb, the Court determined that procedural technicalities should not obstruct justice. Consequently, the Court held that the petitions could be treated as Intra-Court Appeals and remanded them to the High Court for decision in accordance with law. The principle laid down is that where a petition is filed under a mistaken remedy, the Court may, in the interest of justice, convert the proceedings into the correct form of appeal or remand the matter to the appropriate forum, provided the initial filing was within the limitation period for the correct remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal filed in the Supreme Court be converted into an Intra-Court Appeal to be heard by the High Court?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable in the Supreme Court when an Intra-Court Appeal is the proper remedy under the law?
  • Under what circumstances can a court overcome procedural technicalities to treat a petition as a different type of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar-Ul-Haq Shami, Deputy Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad2012 PLJ SC 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-06-11
  Intra Court Appealpetition for leave to appealmaintainabilityremandconversion of petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging a single judge's common order in writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether civil petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court could be directly transferred and converted into Intra Court Appeals before the High Court where an Intra Court Appeal under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 was the proper available remedy. The Supreme Court observed that filing the petitions before it instead of an Intra Court Appeal was an innocent mistake arising from wrong legal advice. Distinguishing procedural technicalities and relying on judicial precedents permitting conversion of incompetent proceedings filed within limitation, the Court held that judicial economy justified converting the petitions rather than dismissing them. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions by remanding them directly to the High Court to be treated and decided as Intra Court Appeals in accordance with law, leaving any questions of limitation for the High Court's determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is maintainable when an Intra Court Appeal lies against the High Court's single bench judgment?
  • Can an incompetent civil petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court be converted into and remanded as an Intra Court Appeal to be decided by the High Court?
  • How are procedural errors regarding the selection of forum for appeal to be treated when committed due to wrong legal advice within the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan/ vs Government of Punjab and others2012 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-16
  civil servantdisciplinary proceedingsmisconductPunjab Service Tribunalmajor penaltydepartmental enquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had modified a major penalty of reduction to the minimum of the basic scale imposed upon the appellant, a former Under Secretary, to a reduction to a lower stage in a time scale. The core legal questions involved whether the Punjab Service Tribunal erred in upholding findings on certain charges without addressing their merits, whether the charges were sustainable due to alleged mala fides and lack of evidence, and whether the appellant's actions constituted misconduct under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the enquiry officer were not based on strong evidence or convincing reasons, and that the competent authority and the Tribunal failed to properly examine whether the alleged misconduct was made out. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and the departmental penalty, allowing the appeal with back benefits and costs. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary penalties imposed upon civil servants must be supported by cogent evidence establishing a violation of rules amounting to misconduct, and service tribunals must rigorously examine the merits of findings rather than merely adjusting penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal erred in upholding findings on charges without giving findings on the merits of those charges?
  • Whether charges of misconduct are sustainable when findings are not based on strong evidence or convincing reasons?
  • Does an employee's refusal to follow oral directions to listen to a subordinate constitute misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975?
  • Whether the basic order passed by a competent authority imposing a major penalty without lawful authority is liable to be set aside along with the service tribunal's judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan vs Government of Punjab and others2012 PLC (C.S.) 992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-16
  disciplinary proceedingsmisconductcivil servicemajor penaltyservice tribunalback benefitsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the imposition of a major penalty on a civil servant for alleged misconduct. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant’s actions constituted misconduct under Rule 2(d) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975, and whether the disciplinary findings were supported by sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court held that the charges were not based on strong evidence or convincing reasons, and that the appellant’s communications did not violate office discipline or constitute misconduct. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty imposed by the competent authority and the modified judgment of the Service Tribunal, allowing the appeal with full back benefits and costs. The judgment establishes that disciplinary proceedings must be grounded in substantial evidence rather than mere allegations, and that the definition of misconduct requires a clear violation of service discipline, which is not satisfied by legitimate professional correspondence. Furthermore, it emphasizes that authorities initiating unfounded disciplinary proceedings against civil servants may be held liable for costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of applications to superiors containing professional grievances constitute misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975?
  • Can a disciplinary penalty be upheld when the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on strong evidence or convincing reasons?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to back benefits when a major penalty imposed by a competent authority is set aside by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and anothers vs Ziaulhaque Makhdoom and others2012 PLJ SC 618, 2012 SCMR 954, 2012 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-04-11
  fair rentenhancement of rentSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceadmissibility of evidencesecondary evidenceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from applications filed by a landlord under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for the enhancement of rent of commercial shops situated in Karachi. The Rent Controller fixed a fair rent of Rs. 50,000 per shop, which was increased by the Additional District Judge to Rs. 100,000 per month. On constitutional petitions, the High Court further modified the rent to Rs. 200 per square foot and applied a subsequent increase under Section 9 of the Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of the factors under Section 8 of the Ordinance and the admissibility of evidence relied upon for fair rent fixation. The Supreme Court held that the factors enumerated under Section 8 are independent and need not co-exist cumulatively, but found that the lower forums and the High Court relied on inadmissible secondary evidence and unproved photocopies of rent agreements without proper proof. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision based on legal evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the factors enumerated in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 must co-exist or are independent of each other for the fixation of fair rent?
  • Can unproved photocopies of rent agreements be used as legal evidence to determine the fair rent of a premises?
  • Whether a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can rely on additional documents introduced without formal permission or being part of the record?
  • Whether the omission to cross-examine a general statement in an affidavit converts unproved assertions into conclusive proof of market rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs Zia-Ul-Haque Makhdoom and others2012 PLJ SC 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-04-11
  fair rent determinationrent enhancementadmissibility of evidenceSindh Rented Premises Ordinancemisreading of evidenceremandtenancy agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the determination of fair rent for commercial premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the factors enumerated in Section 8 of the Ordinance for fixing fair rent must be proven collectively as a composite whole, or if they operate independently. Additionally, the Court examined whether the lower courts erred by relying on inadmissible evidence, specifically unproven photocopies of tenancy agreements, to justify rent enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the factors under Section 8 are independent and do not require simultaneous proof to justify rent fixation. However, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, finding that the lower courts relied on inadmissible evidence and speculative inferences, failing to properly evaluate the record. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision based on admissible evidence. The judgment establishes that while Section 8 factors are independent, any determination of fair rent must be supported by legally admissible evidence, and reliance on unverified documents or documents not properly introduced constitutes a misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Must all factors enumerated in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, co-exist and be proven collectively to justify the fixation of fair rent?
  • Can a Rent Controller rely on photocopies of tenancy agreements as evidence for determining fair rent without them being formally proven?
  • Is it permissible for a High Court to consider additional evidence in a constitutional petition that was not part of the record before the trial court?
  • Does the failure to cross-examine a general statement in an examination-in-chief constitute an admission of all facts contained therein?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Shabnam Noonari and others2012 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-17
  civil petitionleave to appealfamily suitmaintenanceconcurrent findingsconstitutional jurisdictiondower amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Abdul Razzak, to challenge the order of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed his constitutional petition against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Family Court and the appellate Court. The core legal matter involved a suit for maintenance and recovery of dower amount instituted by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner. The Family Court decreed the suit, awarding past and future maintenance to the respondent and her two minor daughters along with delivery expenses, which findings were upheld by the first appellate Court and subsequently by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the quantum of maintenance, passed without due consideration of the petitioner's financial status and limited income, warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that all three lower courts properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record regarding the financial capacity and maintenance obligations, and that the discretionary and equitable constitutional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court was rightly declined. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the quantum of maintenance can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court possess discretionary and equitable powers under Article 199 of the Constitution in family maintenance matters?
  • Can a petitioner challenge concurrent judgments of family and appellate courts by pleading limited sources of income without establishing misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Director General, Post Offices, Islamabad and others2012 C.L.R. 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-28
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaytime-barred appealdepartmental representationSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a postal clerk, was penalized with a reduction in pay for inefficiency and misconduct under departmental rules. His departmental appeal and subsequent representations faced significant delays, leading to the dismissal of his service appeal by the Tribunal on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred and whether repeated departmental representations extend the period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was negligent, failed to justify each day's delay, and that mere repetitions of representations do not enlarge the prescribed period of limitation. The Court concluded that the findings of fact by the Tribunal regarding limitation cannot be interfered with under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in the absence of any question of public importance, thereby dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere in findings of fact arrived at by the Service Tribunal regarding limitation while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the mere repetition of departmental representations enlarge the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Is an aggrieved person seeking condonation of delay under service laws required to justify each day's delay?
  • Whether an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period before the Service Tribunal without a plausible ground for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman Qureshi vs Auditor-General of Pakistan and others2012 PLC (C.S.) 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-08
  Service TribunalReview applicationPension claimLeave to appealImplementation of judgmentMaintainabilityPublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee, challenged orders passed by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his pension and increment claims. Initially, the Tribunal partially accepted his appeal in 2003, rejecting his claim for an additional increment but protecting payments already received. Subsequently, the petitioner filed multiple review applications. In 2004, the Tribunal disposed of a review application after the respondent-department implemented the judgment. Later, in 2010, the Tribunal dismissed a second review application, noting that the original judgment had been fully implemented. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this dismissal. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal lacked the power of review and that the petitioner had previously conceded before the Tribunal that his grievances were redressed and the judgment implemented. Finding no question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, the Court held that the petition was meritless. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the matter had attained finality and no further agitation was maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the power of review regarding its own decisions?
  • Can a petitioner agitate a grievance before the Supreme Court after conceding before the Tribunal that the judgment has been fully implemented?
  • What constitutes a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khan vs Tawseen Abdul Haleem and others2012 CLD 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-09-19
  general damagesspecial damagesmala fidemental agonycivil servantrule of thumbdisciplinary proceedingstortservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a suit for damages filed by a civil servant against his former administrator for alleged mala fide actions, including forced leave preparatory to retirement (LPR) and repeated unlawful retirement orders, which were subsequently set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal. The trial court and the High Court had dismissed the suit, finding the damages unproven. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the petitioner failed to strictly quantify 'special damages' (such as specific litigation costs or medical expenses), held that the evidence clearly established personal vengeance and mala fide conduct by the respondent. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to 'general damages' under the 'rule of thumb' for mental agony and injury to reputation. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and awarded the petitioner Rs. 100,000 in damages with 10% mark-up. The principle established is that while special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, general damages for mental torture and mala fide administrative actions may be awarded at the court's discretion based on the facts and circumstances.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khan vs Tawseen Abdul Haleem & others2012 PLJ SC 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-07-15
  general damagesspecial damagesmalicious prosecutiondisciplinary proceedingscivil servants indemnitymala fidemental torturetort liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 5.00 million against the respondents, alleging personal vendetta and mala fide actions by Respondent No. 1 that resulted in unauthorized leave preparatory to retirement (L.P.R.), wrongful retirement orders, subsequent reinstatements by the Federal Service Tribunal, mental torture, and litigation expenses. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs, and the Lahore High Court maintained the dismissal in regular first appeal. Upon conversion of the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court examined the distinction between general and special damages, the availability of tort remedies in disciplinary proceedings, and the statutory indemnity under civil servant laws. The court held that while special damages and litigation costs could not be awarded due to lack of quantification and barring by prior tribunal proceedings, the petitioner was entitled to general damages for mental agony caused by malicious official acts. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, awarding general damages of Rs. 1,00,000 against Respondent No. 1 personally, with mark-up. The key principle established is that public functionaries acting mala fide and in colorable exercise of power are not protected by statutory indemnity and can be held personally liable for general damages resulting from mental torture and harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a separate civil suit is maintainable for the recovery of litigation costs incurred in proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the tort of malicious prosecution extend to departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Whether a public servant acting mala fide and in colorable exercise of power is protected by the indemnity provision under Section 23-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can general damages be awarded under the rule of thumb when a plaintiff fails to precisely quantify their pecuniary loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and another vs Shaukat Ali and others2012 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-05-28
  specific performancedecretal amountrescission of contractlis pendensbona fide purchaserfraudcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from a judgment of the High Court which had restored the order of the Civil Court allowing the decree-holder to re-deposit the decretal amount in a suit for specific performance and dismissed the application for dismissal of the suit. The core legal questions involved whether a court possesses the power to rescind a contract under section 35 of the Specific Relief Act after the passing of a decree, whether the failure to deposit the decretal amount due to pending litigation and court-ordered withdrawal warrants the dismissal of a specific performance suit, and whether a pendente lite transfer is protected under the doctrine of lis pendens. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the delay in re-depositing the amount was beyond the control of the decree-holder due to pending proceedings under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that specific performance decrees are distinct from pre-emption decrees under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further laid down that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the final outcome of the litigation under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, regardless of being a purchaser for value without notice. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court retain the power to rescind a contract under section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 after a decree for specific performance has already been passed?
  • Are the strict default provisions regarding the deposit of money applicable to a suit for specific performance in the same manner as they apply to pre-emption suits under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit acquire valid title free from the outcome of the litigation under the doctrine of lis pendens codified in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq (Deceased) through L.Rs, vs Ch. Rehmat Ali (Deceased)2012 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-12-14
  pre-emptionbenami transactionmutation entryarbitration awardrule of courtsection 115 CPCpleadings and prooflimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit instituted by respondent No. 1 seeking possession of agricultural land based on mutation entry No. 345 dated 23-2-1982. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that the mutation entry was not an independent sale transaction but merely reflected and affirmed the petitioner's pre-existing title acquired through an earlier registered sale deed, an arbitration award, and a civil court decree. The High Court allowed the regular second appeal (referred to as revision) and restored the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the pre-emption suit. The Court held that the mutation entry merely confirmed a past transaction and did not constitute a fresh sale creating a right of pre-emption. Additionally, the Court affirmed that parties cannot lead evidence beyond their pleadings, and emphasized that revisional/appellate jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. cannot be exercised to substitute findings of fact unless the appellate court's judgment suffers from patent illegality or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation entry confirming a pre-existing title under a court decree constitute an independent sale subject to pre-emption?
  • Can a party at the evidence stage raise factual pleas such as fraud or collusion that were not asserted in the pleadings?
  • Does converting a civil petition for leave to appeal filed within the limitation period into a civil appeal render the appeal time-barred?
  • Can the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. substitute its own factual findings for those of the appellate court without establishing patent illegality or perversity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Haji Noor Badshah2012 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-10-11
  Civil RevisionSuit for recoveryAuthenticity of receiptFraming of issuesNon-framing of issueMisreading of evidenceNon-reading of evidenceConcurrent findingsPrejudiceMiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's Civil Revision, thereby affirming the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional District Judge. The original dispute involved a respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000,000 and the petitioner's counter-suit seeking cancellation of a receipt dated 5-5-1999. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the trial court's non-framing of a specific issue regarding the receipt's authenticity prejudiced the petitioner, and if the lower courts' decisions were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the non-framing of a specific issue is inconsequential if parties were fully aware of the controversy, led evidence on it, and no miscarriage of justice occurred. The Court noted the petitioner failed to raise this issue in prior appeals and found no misreading or non-reading of evidence to warrant interference.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar (deceased) and others vs Mst. Maqbool Jan and others2012 PLJ SC 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-04-18
  specific performancebona fide purchaserconstructive noticeagreement to sellColonization of Government Landsproprietary rightspossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals against a High Court judgment decreeing specific performance of an agreement to sell land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The core legal questions were whether an agreement to sell land, executed prior to the acquisition of proprietary rights, violated Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and whether subsequent purchasers could claim protection as bona fide purchasers under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1882. The Supreme Court held that the agreement in question constituted an agreement to sell rather than a completed sale, and thus did not violate Section 19 of the Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondents' possession of the land constituted constructive notice to the appellants. Consequently, the appellants failed to discharge their burden of inquiry regarding the nature of the respondents' interest, disqualifying them from the protection afforded to bona fide purchasers. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that possession serves as notice of title, and agreements to sell are distinct from prohibited sales under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell land, executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights, violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
  • Does the possession of land by a third party constitute constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser regarding the occupant's title?
  • Can a subsequent purchaser claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1882, without inquiring about the nature of the possession of the current occupant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Sheikh vs Deputy Collector of Customs and others2012 PLC (C.S.) 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-27
  misconductdisciplinary proceedingsdismissal from servicedue processconcurrent findings of factservice tribunalcustoms inspector
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Customs Inspector, challenged his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The charges alleged that he facilitated the smuggling of Pakistani currency by a passenger at Lahore Airport by clandestinely granting customs clearance. A formal inquiry was conducted, during which the petitioner was provided an opportunity to defend himself, cross-examine witnesses, and lead evidence. The inquiry officer concluded that the charges were established. The Service Tribunal subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming that the inquiry process was fair and the findings were supported by evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was not present at the airport at the relevant time and that the allegations were unproven. The Supreme Court observed that the inquiry officer was impartial, the petitioner had been afforded full due process, and the findings of fact were concurrent. Finding no legal error or question of public importance, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a service matter where due process was followed?
  • Does the failure to raise a question of public importance preclude the grant of leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  • Is a disciplinary inquiry valid if the accused was granted full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Abbas Ali and others2012 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-02
  Lambardar land allotmentState land grantinterpretation of notificationadjoining villagescontiguityconstitutional petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil dispute regarding the allotment of State land to a Lambardar under a government notification dated 17-1-2006, as amended on 22-10-2007, which provides for the grant of land in physically joining or adjoining villages if land is not available in the Lambardar's own village. The core legal question was whether 'joining or adjoining villages' under the notification extends to any village within the entire Tehsil or is restricted to villages physically contiguous to the Lambardar's village. The Supreme Court held that 'joining' or 'adjoining' villages mean those that are physically contiguous and share a common border with the Lambardar's village, and does not include non-contiguous villages in the Tehsil. The Court laid down the principle that the terms joining and adjoining require physical contiguity and shared borders, thereby setting aside the High Court's interpretation and restoring the cancellation of the allotment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the term 'adjoining villages' in a government land grant notification includes any village within the entire Tehsil or is restricted to physically contiguous villages?
  • Does an allotment of State land outside the village of the Lambardar's appointment violate the provisions of the notification dated 22-10-2007 if it lacks a common border?
  • What is the legal definition and scope of the words 'joining' and 'adjoining' in the context of land allotment notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Aabid vs The State and others2012 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-02-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductioncriminal investigationexoneration by victim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of abduction and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with several others, was accused of abducting three women. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the circumstances of the investigation. The Supreme Court observed that a significant portion of the prosecution's case had been found to be false during the investigation, with eight out of eleven accused declared innocent. Furthermore, the Court noted that one of the alleged abductees had previously exonerated the petitioner in a separate proceeding, and all co-accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry, satisfying the criteria for the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution story is substantially weakened by investigation findings and exculpatory statements from victims, the case for further inquiry is established, warranting the release of the accused on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that a significant portion of the prosecution's case is found to be false during investigation justify the grant of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail appropriate when co-accused are already on bail and the victim has exonerated the petitioner?
  • Does a case require 'further inquiry' when the police investigation fails to provide a positive opinion regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• A.R. Awan and 2 others vs City District Government, Karachi and another2012 PSC (Crl.) 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-22
  appeal against acquittalappellate jurisdictionscope of Section 423 CrPCpenal liabilityfiscal liabilitylicense feesSindh Local Government Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh which dismissed an acquittal appeal filed by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upholding the acquittal of the appellants for alleged violations of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979. However, in paragraph 28 of its judgment, the High Court issued directions determining the scale of license fees payable by the appellants and granting discretion to collect them retrospectively. The Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court deciding an acquittal appeal could lawfully issue administrative or fiscal directions beyond the statutory parameters of Section 423 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that penal liability is distinct from fiscal liability and cannot be intermingled. Under Section 423 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court's jurisdiction was strictly confined to deciding the guilt or acquittal of the accused. The court laid down that appellate courts must not decide unnecessary questions or travel beyond their statutory scope.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court hearing an appeal against acquittal under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 issue directions for the determination and recovery of civil or fiscal dues?
  • Does an appellate court have jurisdiction higher than or beyond the statutory limits of the original trial forum?
  • Can criminal penal liability be intermingled with fiscal liability in prosecution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• A.P. Moller through Maersk Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone I, Karachi and2012 C.L.R. 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-01-24
  shipping incomenon-resident carriersinward cargo freightFOB contractdouble taxation treatysource of incometax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed a reference application filed by the petitioner concerning the taxability of freight charges on inward cargo. The core legal question involved whether freight charges received or receivable in Pakistan by non-resident shipping companies for the carriage of goods embarked outside Pakistan under FOB contracts are taxable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether such taxation is barred by Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty or geographical source rules. The Supreme Court held that the gross amounts received or receivable in Pakistan for the carriage of goods embarked outside Pakistan are validly subject to tax under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and that Pakistan constitutes the source state under Article 8(3) of the Double Taxation Agreement, permitting taxation in accordance with domestic law. The key principle laid down is that freight charges paid in Pakistan for inbound cargo under FOB terms constitute profits derived from sources within Pakistan, falling within the taxing rights of the domestic legislature and not overridden by double taxation treaties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether freight charges on inward cargo received in Pakistan under an FOB contract fall within the ambit of sources within the other Contracting State under Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty?
  • Can Pakistan tax freight charges for cargo embarked outside Pakistan under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty override the domestic taxing provisions contained in Section 7 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Are the provisions of Section 7 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Section 80 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in pari materia for the purpose of availing tax concessions under CBR circulars?
  Read full judgment →
• A.P. Moller through Maersk Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone-I, Karachi and another2012 PTD 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-01-24
  income taxshipping incomenon-resident taxationdouble taxation agreementsource-based taxationfreight chargesFOB contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the taxability of freight charges for inward cargo carried by non-resident shipping companies. The core legal question was whether freight charges received in Pakistan for cargo embarked outside Pakistan on an FOB basis were taxable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or if they were exempt under Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty. The Supreme Court held that Section 7(1)(b) explicitly imposes tax on such gross amounts received or receivable in Pakistan. Regarding the Treaty, the Court determined that Article 8(3) allows the source state (Pakistan) to tax profits derived from sources within its jurisdiction in accordance with domestic law. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on previous circulars and interpretations, affirming that the domestic taxing provision is not overridden by the Treaty in this context. The principle laid down is that freight charges for inward cargo paid in Pakistan constitute income derived from sources within Pakistan, rendering them taxable under domestic law notwithstanding the provisions of the double taxation agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Are freight charges received in Pakistan for inward cargo embarked outside Pakistan taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty override the domestic taxing provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can profits derived from freight charges on inward cargo be considered income derived from sources within Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• A.P. Moller through Maersk Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone I, Karachi and another2012 C.L.R. 937, 2012 PTD 683, 2012 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-01-24
  income taxnon-resident shipping companydouble taxation agreementfreight chargessource ruletax treaty interpretationinward cargo
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the taxability of freight charges earned by non-resident shipping companies on inward cargo to Pakistan. The core legal question was whether freight charges received in Pakistan by non-resident carriers for goods embarked outside Pakistan are taxable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether such taxation conflicts with Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly interpreted the law, affirming that Section 7(1)(b) explicitly includes gross amounts received or receivable in Pakistan for the carriage of goods embarked outside Pakistan as taxable income. The Court further held that Article 8(3) of the Tax Treaty permits the 'source State' (Pakistan) to tax profits derived from sources within its jurisdiction in accordance with domestic law. The Court rejected the argument that the treaty provision was ambiguous or that a prior circular letter could override the clear statutory provisions of the 2001 Ordinance, ultimately dismissing the petition as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Are freight charges received in Pakistan by non-resident carriers for goods embarked outside Pakistan taxable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Article 8(3) of the Pak-Danish Tax Treaty preclude Pakistan from taxing profits from the operation of ships in international traffic derived from sources within Pakistan?
  • Can a circular letter issued by the Central Board of Revenue override the explicit taxing provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• 1.-G. Punjab, Lahore and others vs Iqbal Mehmood2012 PLC (C.S.) 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-03-26
  voluntary retirementleave preparatory to retirementwithdrawal of retirement applicationcivil servantservice tribunalpension rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the respondent police department employee's request to withdraw his voluntary retirement and leave preparatory to retirement was allowed, and the competent authority's order retiring him was set aside. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could withdraw an application for voluntary retirement and leave preparatory to retirement after it had been accepted and given effect to by the competent authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, holding that under Rule 3.5(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, an application for voluntary retirement once accepted and acted upon cannot be withdrawn. The key principle laid down is that a government servant's right to withdraw a voluntary retirement request is strictly contingent upon such withdrawal occurring before its acceptance by the competent authority and before it has been given effect to.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant withdraw an application for voluntary retirement after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
  • Whether a request for leave preparatory to retirement once given effect to can be subsequently withdrawn under the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules?
  • What is the effect of acceptance and implementation of a retirement application on the civil servant's right of withdrawal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Hussain and anothers vs The State2011 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-12-21
  murdersection 161 CrPC statementssection 162 CrPC prohibitionsection 265-C CrPC scopemitigation of sentencelife imprisonmenteyewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 302/34 PPC for double murder, which were affirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of an un-nominated natural eyewitness, the evidentiary status of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in light of Section 265-C Cr.P.C., and whether the death penalty was warranted where motive and genesis of the occurrence remained obscure. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the eyewitness testimony trustworthy and corroborated, while firmly rejecting the argument that Section 265-C Cr.P.C. impliedly repealed the prohibition under Section 162 Cr.P.C. against using Section 161 statements as substantive evidence. However, because the murder lacked evidence of premeditation and the genesis of the crime was hazy, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment under Section 302(b)/34 PPC on two counts, running concurrently, with Section 382-B Cr.P.C. benefit extended.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure override or annul the prohibition contained in Section 162 Cr.P.C. regarding the evidentiary use of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. be treated as substantive evidence during a criminal trial?
  • Is a sentence of death maintainable where the motive and genesis of the murder remain hazy and shrouded in mystery?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Hussain and another vs The State2011 PSC (Crl.) 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdercapital punishmentcommutation of sentencepolice statementscontradictioneyewitness testimonycriminal proceduremitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of two appellants under Sections 302/34, PPC, for the double murder of A.R. Sharif and an alleged co-assailant, resulting in sentences of death confirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the occurrence was un-witnessed, whether the prosecution's sectarian motive theory was tenable, whether statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. could be used as substantive evidence at trial following the introduction of Section 265-C, Cr.P.C., and whether mitigating circumstances warranted commuting the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness testimony was natural and credible, that the introduction of Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. was merely procedural and did not override the absolute prohibition in Section 162, Cr.P.C. against using police statements as substantive evidence, and that the genesis and motive of the crime remaining shrouded in mystery constituted mitigating circumstances. The Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentences to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the introduction of Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impliedly repeal the bar in Section 162 against using police statements under Section 161 as substantive evidence at trial?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used for any purpose other than contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Whether the absence of a clear motive and hazy genesis of the crime can serve as a mitigating circumstance to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Does the principle of indivisibility of the veracity of witnesses apply in criminal trials in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad and anothers vs The State2011 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-05
  MurderAppealConvictionDeath sentenceLife imprisonmentInterested witnessCorroborationAcquittal of co-accusedOcular evidenceMedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal against conviction under Section 302(b) PPC and a death sentence. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the prosecution established guilt of murder, especially given the acquittal of three co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Supreme Court considered arguments regarding the reliability of identification in a dark night, the evidentiary value of interested witnesses (the deceased's wife and father), the consistency of ocular and medical evidence, and the requirement for corroboration. The Court held that statements of interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship, emphasizing that their intrinsic value is paramount, and minor contradictions can be ignored. It reaffirmed that corroboration is a rule of prudence, not a principle of law, and its extent varies. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction, but converted the death sentence of appellant Zulfiqar Ahmad to life imprisonment due to the acquittal of co-accused and the absence of evidence showing prior concert of mind or common intention, while noting the fatal shot was attributed to another appellant.

  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad and another vs The State2011 PSC (Crl.) 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-05
  criminal appealmurderrelated witnessesinterested witnesscorroborationappreciation of evidencesentence reductiondeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' appeal against their conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the prosecution successfully established guilt given the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Supreme Court evaluated the testimonies of natural and related eye-witnesses, medical evidence, and corroborative material. The Court held that related or inmate witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of inter se relationship if their testimony is natural, consistent, and stands the test of cross-examination, and that minor contradictions do not affect the core merits. Furthermore, corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than law, and the testimony of eye-witnesses must be assessed based on intrinsic value and presence. The Court distinguished the role of the appellants from the acquitted co-accused, specifically noting the attribution of the fatal injury to one appellant and active facilitation by the other. While dismissing the appeal of the principal offender, the Court converted the death sentence of the co-appellant to life imprisonment due to the overall circumstances and acquittal of other co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related or inmate eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their inter se relationship with the deceased?
  • Is corroboration a strict rule of law or merely a rule of prudence in criminal trials?
  • Whether the acquittal of certain co-accused on the same set of evidence automatically warrants the acquittal of remaining appellants whose roles are distinguishable?
  • Under what circumstances can a death sentence be converted to life imprisonment based on the overall scenario and the acquittal of co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia alias Ahmi vs The State2011 SCMR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-29
  murdercompromiseacquittalminor legal heirsdeath sentencecompounding of offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal petition converted into an appeal, wherein the petitioner, Zia alias Ahmi, was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi. The core legal question concerned the acceptance of a compromise reached between the parties and its effect on the conviction, including the safeguarding of financial provisions for the minor legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the compromise, having been verified as genuine by the District and Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, should be accepted. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between legal heirs in a qatl-e-amd case warrants acquittal under the relevant compounding provisions, subject to adequate safeguards for the rights of minor heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
  • How should the financial interests of minor legal heirs be protected when a compromise is accepted in a murder case?
  • Under which legal provisions can a compromise be accepted in a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. vs Hakeem Khan2011 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-05-08
  corporation serviceremoval from servicedisciplinary proceedingsmaster and servantcolourable exercise of powerstatutory safeguardsoverriding effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an Islamabad High Court order that accepted the respondent's writ petition against his removal from service as a Senior Vice-President of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. The core legal question was whether a corporation service employee could be relieved from service under bank staff regulations on grounds of inefficiency and absence without resorting to the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner-bank is a statutory body controlled by the Federal Government, its employees fall under 'corporation service' governed by the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, which has an overriding effect. The Court ruled that dispensing with an employee's services through a relieving order under the guise of staff regulations, thereby circumventing mandatory statutory inquiry procedures and safeguards, constitutes a colourable exercise of power and is unsustainable. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, affirming the reinstatement of the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 applies to employees of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited?
  • Can a statutory corporation dispense with the services of an employee on disciplinary grounds under internal staff regulations without invoking the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the issuance of a relieving order instead of a formal dismissal bypass mandatory statutory inquiry procedures and safeguards?
  • What is the effect of initiating disciplinary action under a wrong law or misconception of law on the final termination order?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. and another vs Muhammad Bakhsh and another2011 PLC (C.S.) 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-11
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionSection 2A repealprotection of payservice of Pakistanleave to appealservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which granted the respondent's claim for protection of pay and salary arrears based on his previous service in the Ministry of Interior. The petitioner-organization challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that, based on recent Supreme Court precedents, the respondent could not be considered in the service of Pakistan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the jurisdictional implications of the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which occurred after the pronouncement of the judgment in Dr. Muhammad Amin v. President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. The core legal question concerns whether, following the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, employees of such organizations remain entitled to seek remedies before the Service Tribunal, notwithstanding previous judicial pronouncements regarding the status of such employees. The Court directed an expedited hearing to resolve this issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, affect the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal over employees of organizations previously covered by that section?
  • Are employees of organizations previously governed by Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, entitled to seek remedies before the Service Tribunal following the Act's repeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. & another vs Muhammad Bakhsh and another2011 PLJ SC 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-11
  service appealpay protectionjurisdiction of service tribunalrepeal of section 2Aleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which accepted the service appeal of Respondent No. 1 and granted him the benefit of pay protection and salary arrears based on his previous employment in the Ministry of Interior, Directorate General of Registration (NADRA). The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal over employees of the petitioner-organization following the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the effect of previous judgments in light of the repeal of Section 2A vide Act No. II of 2010, and whether employees of such organizations remain entitled to avail the remedy before the Service Tribunal notwithstanding earlier case law. The Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to consider these statutory changes and judicial precedents, and directed the office to fix the ensuing appeal for hearing within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal retain jurisdiction over employees of the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. after the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • What is the effect of the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on pending and decided service matters of corporate bodies?
  • Are employees of organizations previously covered under Section 2A entitled to approach the Service Tribunal after the enactment of Act No. II of 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed vs I.-G. of Police, Punjab and others2011 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-15
  police investigationprivate complaintalternate remedyjudicial interventioncriminal procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the closure of a police investigation regarding an F.I.R. registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's grievance, observing that the petitioner possessed an adequate alternate remedy by filing a private complaint and that the Court should not interfere in ongoing investigation proceedings. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the High Court's refusal to interfere was legally unfounded, citing precedents regarding judicial intervention in investigations. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while courts may, in appropriate cases, direct the reinvestigation of a matter, the present petition failed to provide sufficient justification to override the concurrent findings of the High Court judges. The Court held that the availability of a private complaint constituted an adequate alternate remedy in the circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming that judicial intervention in police investigations is discretionary and dependent on the specific circumstances of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the availability of a private complaint constitute an adequate alternate remedy when police close an investigation?
  • Is the High Court precluded from interfering in police investigation proceedings in all circumstances?
  • Under what conditions may a court direct the reinvestigation of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar vs Muhammad Abad and others2011 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-02
  criminal petitionbaillimitationcondonation of delaycounter-versionsSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the complainant to challenge a bail-granting order passed by the High Court of Sindh. The petitioner sought to impugn the legality of the order, arguing that it was not based on a proper appreciation of the facts, despite acknowledging the existence of two counter-versions of the same occurrence. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed 22 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. When confronted with this delay, the petitioner failed to provide any plausible explanation or sufficient cause in the accompanying application for condonation of delay filed under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Consequently, the Court held that the petition could not be entertained due to the failure to meet the requirements of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal petition solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation, without reaching the merits of the bail order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal petition be entertained by the Supreme Court if it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without a plausible explanation?
  • Is an application for condonation of delay sufficient to save a time-barred petition if it fails to disclose a plausible or sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Abbas vs State2011 PLJ SC 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-01-29
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionlast seen evidencesodomystrangulationrecovery of clothingadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant for sodomy, murder, and concealment of evidence under Sections 377, 302, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony, an extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of a semen-stained shalwar. The High Court had previously commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, by a 2 to 1 majority, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that the chain of circumstantial evidence—comprising the extra-judicial confession made to an independent witness, the 'last seen' evidence, and the recovery of the victim's clothing on the appellant's pointation—was complete and excluded all hypotheses of innocence. The dissenting judge argued that the confession was involuntary, the 'last seen' evidence lacked independent corroboration, and discrepancies in the recovery of the clothing and medical timeline created reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession be relied upon if it is obtained through threats or inducements?
  • Whether 'last seen' evidence alone, without independent corroboration, is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution failing to examine a material witness who was present and available in court?
  • Can a conviction be maintained if the witnesses make material improvements in their court statements compared to their initial statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad and 4 others vs Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Punjab and others2011 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-22
  civil servantssecretariat allowancepension rightsvested rightsretrospective legislationequality before lawlegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired civil servants from Punjab, challenged the withdrawal of the Secretariat Allowance, which they had received during service and after retirement. They contended that because they retired before the enactment of the Punjab Secretariat Allowance (Withdrawal) Act 1997, they possessed a vested right to include the allowance in their pension calculations. They further argued that the withdrawal violated Article 25 of the Constitution, citing precedents where federal employees retained the allowance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that the 1997 Act explicitly provided that the original executive letter granting the allowance 'shall be deemed never to have been issued' and created no rights. The Court affirmed that the legislature possesses the authority to retrospectively take away or affect vested rights through valid enactments. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the principle of equality under Article 25 cannot be invoked to claim a benefit based on an illegality, even if other employees were erroneously paid after the withdrawal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legislature has the authority to retrospectively take away or affect the vested rights of a person through a legislative enactment?
  • Does a retired civil servant retain a vested right to an allowance for pension purposes if a subsequent Act deems the original grant of that allowance never to have existed?
  • Can the rule of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution be invoked to claim a benefit based on an illegality or an erroneous payment made to others?
  Read full judgment →
• Worldcall Telecom Limited vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority2011 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-07-01
  re-admission of appealdismissal for defaultlimitationcondonation of delaycounsel negligenceOrder XLI Rule 19 CPCrestoration of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's refusal to re-admit an appeal dismissed for default. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed when its counsel failed to appear despite their names being printed in the cause list and repeated calls by the court. An application for re-admission under Order XLI, Rule 19 read with Section 151, C.P.C., was filed several months later. The petitioner attributed the default to counsel's negligence and claimed lack of timely knowledge. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appeal ought to be re-admitted on the ground of counsel's negligence and whether sufficient cause for delay had been shown. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave, holding that the petitioner had acted without diligence by failing to inquire about the case and further delaying filing the application for 20 days after obtaining the certified copy without explaining the daily delay under the Limitation Act. The Court reiterated that limitation creates vested rights and the law aids the vigilant, not the negligent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal dismissed for default be re-admitted solely on the ground of the negligence of the appellant's counsel where the counsel's name was duly printed in the cause list?
  • Whether an application for re-admission of an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 19 C.P.C. can be entertained when the applicant fails to explain the day-to-day delay under the Limitation Act after learning of the dismissal?
  • Does the expiry of the period of limitation for seeking restoration of a dismissed appeal create a vested right in favour of the opposing party?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) through Chairman and others vs Dr. Altaf-Ur-Rehman2011 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-30
  service tribunalwork-charged servicetime scale promotioncontinuous servicecivil review petitionWAPDA service rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Federal Service Tribunal's decision, which held that an employee's service on a work-charged basis should be counted toward the 10 years of continuous service required for time-scale placement in BS-18 under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Scientific Officers Service Rules, 1980. The core legal question was whether work-charged service could be included in calculating the continuous service requirement despite the exclusion of work-charged employees from the general application of the WAPDA Service Rules under Rule 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the 10 years of continuous service mentioned in Rule 6(b)(i) refers to continuous service generally without being qualified by the word 'regular' and thus includes service rendered on a work-charged basis. The key principle laid down is that while work-charged employees are excluded from availing certain benefits under the general service rules, their prior continuous work-charged service counts toward the eligibility threshold for time-scale promotion unless expressly restricted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether work-charged service can be counted towards the ten years continuous service requirement for time scale placement under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Scientific Officers Service Rules, 1980?
  • Do the WAPDA Service Rules exclude work-charged employees from acquiring eligibility for service benefits based on prior continuous service?
  • Can a new factual assertion regarding the duration of continuous service be raised for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasi-Ud-Din vs Fakhra Akhtar and 4 others2011 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-02-23
  benami transactionreal ownerbenamidarsecond appealreversal of concurrent findingspreponderance of evidencedeclaratory suitequitable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose out of a property title dispute involving two cross-suits concerning whether certain properties purchased in the names of a deceased's wife and daughter were held as benamidars for the deceased real owner. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently decided in favour of the appellant, but the Lahore High Court reversed these decisions in second appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court rightly re-appraised the evidence to set aside concurrent findings that had ignored crucial record evidence. The Court found that the preponderance of evidence, including the appellant's own cross-examination admission and lack of proof of independent financial resources, established that the properties were purchased by the deceased as the real owner. Reinforcing precedent, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a benami transaction is a factual question depending on the circumstances of each case, and relief in equity may be denied where a party's inequitable conduct undermines credibility.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. reverse concurrent findings of fact if lower courts ignored vital evidence on record?
  • Whether determination of a benami transaction is a question of fact to be decided based on all circumstances of the specific case?
  • Can equity-based relief like declaration and permanent injunction be denied to a litigant whose conduct demonstrates bad faith and lack of credibility?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA and others vs Qari Muhammad Feroze and others2011 PLC (C.S.) 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-10-27
  service lawseniority listselection gradeservice benefitssub judicedepartmental liabilityWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute between WAPDA and its employees regarding entitlement to Selection Grade following the determination of a combined seniority list. The employees, having successfully challenged the separate seniority lists of Tarbela Power Station No. 1 and No. 2, obtained a court-ordered combined seniority list in 2001. Subsequently, they sought Selection Grade benefits, which WAPDA denied, arguing that the 33% quota for such grades had already been exhausted based on the previous separate seniority lists. The core legal question was whether the department could deny consequential service benefits, specifically the Selection Grade, to employees whose seniority rights were under active litigation and subsequently established via a combined list. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, holding that the department acted prematurely by granting benefits based on disputed seniority lists while litigation was pending. The Court established the principle that when seniority rights are sub judice, a department must refrain from finalizing consequential promotions or benefits until the court determines the seniority, as the department bears the responsibility for complications arising from hasty administrative actions taken during pending litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department grant service benefits based on seniority lists that are currently under legal challenge?
  • Does the finalization of a combined seniority list by court order entitle employees to consequential service benefits like Selection Grade?
  • Is a department responsible for complications arising from administrative actions taken while the underlying seniority dispute is pending in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Violation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 in procurement loss of billions2011 PLJ SC 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contempt of courtobstruction of justiceFIA investigationNICL scamwillful defianceexecutive interferenceshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the Director General of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and other senior government officials for allegedly interfering with and obstructing a court-ordered investigation into a financial scam involving the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL). The core legal question revolves around whether the actions of the officials in issuing a notification to disassociate the supervising officer, Mr. Zafar Ahmed Qureshi, from the investigation amounted to willful defiance and contempt of court. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, by acting in haste and on dubious grounds to remove the supervising officer, created obstacles in the investigation and directly disregarded the court's directions, thereby committing contempt. The key principle laid down is that executive actions and bureaucratic maneuvering designed to frustrate, delay, or interfere with judicial orders and court-mandated investigations constitute direct contempt of court under the Constitution and relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a notification disassociating an investigation officer appointed by the Supreme Court constitute contempt of court?
  • Whether bureaucratic actions that create obstacles in a court-ordered investigation amount to interference with judicial proceedings?
  • Can senior government officials be held liable for contempt for facilitating the removal of an investigator through questionable verbal orders and hasty notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Ulfat Hussain vs State2011 PLJ SC 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-24
  child witnesssole testimonycapital punishmentcorroborationmurderbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave questions the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatal-e-Amd of the complainant's mother, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case heavily relied upon the sole testimony of a minor child witness, medical evidence, and the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for capital punishment can safely be sustained on the uncorroborated sole testimony of a child witness when contradictions exist and medical evidence is inconclusive. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and acquitted the appellant. The Court laid down the principle that while a conviction can legally be based on the testimony of an intelligent child witness, the rule of prudence and caution requires reliable corroboration—such as consistent medical, circumstantial, or forensic evidence—and the uncorroborated sole testimony of a child witness is unsafe to rely upon where it suffers from contradictions and lack of support.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness?
  • Whether the rule of prudence requires corroboration for the evidence of a child witness in criminal trials?
  • Does a contradiction between the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of a child witness render their testimony unsafe for a capital conviction?
  • Is the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon after a long delay sufficient to support a conviction under Section 302 PPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Uch Power (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and othersPLJ 2011 Tax Cases (SC) 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income tax exemptionpower generation projectinterest incomeincome from other sourcesset off of lossesrepealed income tax ordinancefiscal statute interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses forty-three civil petitions and appeals involving common questions regarding the interpretation and applicability of Clause 176 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1976 (corresponding to clause 132 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001), which grants tax exemptions on profits and gains derived by private sector electric power generation projects set up on or after July 1, 1988. The core legal questions concern whether interest earned by power generation companies on bank deposits and accounts is exempt under Clause 176 as income derived from the power project, and whether business losses can be set off against income under other heads. The Supreme Court held that interest income earned on bank deposits constitutes 'income from other sources' under Section 30 of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and is distinct from 'profits and gains' from business under Section 22, thus remaining ineligible for tax exemption under Clause 176, reaffirming its prior rulings in the Genertech and AES Pak Gen cases. However, the Court also held that business losses sustained by the assessee companies are permissible for set-off against income under other heads pursuant to Section 34 read with Section 23(1)(vii) of the Ordinance. The petitions concerning interest income exemption were dismissed, while those concerning the set-off of business losses were accordingly resolved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether profits and gains on deposit of funds in banks maintained for the purpose of a company's electric power generation project are exempt from income tax under Clause 176 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the exemption of profits and gains from an electric power generation project under Clause 176 include interest income earned from bank accounts within its scope?
  • Whether business losses sustained by an assessee company engaged in an electric power generation project can be set off against income under other heads pursuant to Section 34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether interest earned on bank deposits by a power generation company falls under 'income from business' or 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Uch Power (Pvt.) Ltd. And Other vs Income Tax Appellatetribunal And OtherPTCL 2011 CL. 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income tax exemptionpower generation projectsset-off of lossesfiscal statute interpretationincome from other sourcesbusiness incometax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter involved forty-three petitions and appeals concerning the taxability of interest income earned by private sector power generation companies on bank deposits and the set-off of business losses. The core legal questions were whether such interest income qualifies for tax exemption under Clause 176 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, and whether business losses can be set off against income from other sources. The Supreme Court held that the exemption under Clause 176 applies only to "profits and gains" derived from business, which is governed by Section 22 of the Ordinance. Interest income, being categorized as "income from other sources" under Section 30, is distinct and not exempt. Conversely, the Court ruled that under Section 34 of the Ordinance, business losses are entitled to be set off against income from other sources. The Court affirmed that fiscal exemptions must be interpreted based on the specific statutory head of income, and distinct income sources cannot be conflated to claim exemptions intended solely for business operations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tax exemption under Clause 176 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for 'profits and gains' from power generation projects extend to interest income earned on bank deposits?
  • Can business losses incurred by an assessee be set off against income from other sources under Section 34 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Is interest income earned by a company on bank deposits considered 'income from business' or 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Yasin Memon alias Yasin Memon and another2011 PSC (Crl.) 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ocular evidenceanti-terrorismacquittalappellate reviewmisreading of evidencecriminal appealQatl-e-Amdappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court of Sindh’s judgment, which acquitted two respondents previously convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred by discarding consistent ocular evidence from four prosecution witnesses on the ground that they were subordinates to the complainant, and by focusing on irrelevant factors like the ownership of the motorcycle used in the crime. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning was fanciful, conjectural, and lacked legal sanctity. The Court found that the prosecution witnesses were natural, consistent, and remained unshaken during cross-examination, with no evidence of animosity against the respondents. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal, restoring the convictions under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The judgment affirms that appellate courts cannot discard credible, consistent ocular evidence on speculative grounds, particularly when the accused were apprehended on the spot with crime weapons.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court discard consistent ocular evidence solely on the ground that the witnesses were subordinates to the complainant?
  • Does the failure to prove the ownership of a vehicle used in a crime constitute a valid ground for acquittal when the accused were apprehended on the spot?
  • Is an acquittal based on fanciful and conjectural reasoning, ignoring material evidence, sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director-General, Anti Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi vs Zamray Khan2011 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-19
  narcotics smugglingcancellation of bailnon-bailable offencechemical examiner reportevasion of processControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a petition for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, who was charged with smuggling five kilograms of heroin. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail for a non-bailable offence punishable by death. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was untenable because a significant quantity of narcotics was recovered, the Chemical Examiner's report confirmed the presence of heroin, and there was no delay in the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent was evading the legal process by failing to appear. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and cancelled the respondent's bail. The judgment reaffirms that in narcotics cases involving substantial quantities and positive forensic evidence, bail should not be granted where reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed the offence and where the accused demonstrates an intent to avoid the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted in a narcotics case where a large quantity of contraband is recovered and the offence is punishable by death?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear before the court constitute a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
  • Is the positive report of a Chemical Examiner a relevant factor in determining the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director-General, Anti Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi vs Qaisar Hafeez2011 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-23
  post-arrest bailcancellation of bailnarcoticsfurther inquirycriminal procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether the respondent, found at the premises where a large quantity of narcotics was recovered, was entitled to bail despite the prosecution's claim of his involvement as a custodian of the house. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision. It affirmed that the respondent's mere presence at the scene, without evidence connecting him to the contraband, warranted further inquiry. The Court held that where no specific role is attributed to an accused in a narcotics case and the prosecution fails to establish a direct connection to the contraband, bail is appropriate. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where a trial is at the verge of conclusion and the accused has not abused the concession of bail, cancellation of bail on technical grounds is inappropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail in a narcotics case where no specific role is attributed to them other than presence at the scene of recovery?
  • Should bail be cancelled when the trial is at the verge of conclusion and the accused has not abused the concession of bail?
  • Does the mere presence of an individual at a premises where narcotics are recovered constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director-General, ANF vs Said Ahmed2011 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-11
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious knowledgejudicial discretioncriminal petitionexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondent in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail where the respondent was a passenger in a vehicle from which narcotics were recovered from secret cavities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no impropriety in the exercise of judicial discretion, as the issue of the respondent's 'conscious knowledge' of the concealed narcotics remained a matter to be determined at trial. The Court affirmed that bail is appropriate when the prosecution's case requires further evidentiary substantiation regarding the accused's knowledge of the contraband. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to expedite the submission of challans within the statutory period of 14 days as contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within a strict timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Is a passenger in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics entitled to bail if their conscious knowledge of the contraband is a triable issue?
  • Does the failure to produce evidence within the statutory period warrant the dismissal of a bail cancellation petition?
  • What is the statutory timeframe for the submission of a challan under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director-General, ANF vs Mujeeb Khan2011 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-25
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmedical groundsabscondencenon-bailable warrantsforfeiture of surety
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had granted post-arrest bail to the respondent on medical grounds. The State challenged the bail, arguing that the respondent's medical condition (migraine) did not justify relief and that the respondent had subsequently absconded, failing to appear despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s bail, granted on medical grounds, should be recalled given his failure to appear before the court and his subsequent abscondence. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had failed to appear despite notices and that non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted due to his unknown whereabouts. The Court held that the respondent’s conduct in avoiding the legal process rendered his continued liberty untenable. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, recalled the concession of bail, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case. The judgment affirms that bail granted on medical grounds may be cancelled if the accused abuses the concession by absconding and failing to participate in the judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail granted on medical grounds be recalled if the accused absconds?
  • What is the consequence of an accused failing to appear before the court after being granted bail?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants justify the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director-General Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi vs Sultan Shah2011 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-19
  bail cancellationabsconding accusedforfeiture of surety bondtrial delayjudicial accountabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a criminal petition filed by the State through the Director-General of the Anti-Narcotics Force against the respondent, Sultan Shah, challenging an order regarding bail. The respondent failed to appear before the Court, having jumped bail and avoided legal process, which led the Supreme Court to forfeit the surety bond furnished by the respondent. The Court directed the Presiding Officer of the Special Court No. 1 (C.N.S.), Karachi, to initiate proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the surety. Furthermore, the Supreme Court expressed concern regarding the inordinate delay in the trial, which had been pending since June 2006, and directed the Presiding Officer to provide an explanation for the delay and submit a list of pending cases. Ultimately, the Supreme Court converted the criminal petition into an appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and cancelled the respondent's bail, emphasizing the necessity of judicial accountability and the enforcement of bail conditions when a respondent absconds.

  Questions settled

  • What is the procedure for a court to follow when an accused jumps bail and fails to appear?
  • Can a court order the forfeiture of a surety bond when an accused avoids the process of law?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to demand an explanation from a subordinate court regarding inordinate trial delays?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through D.-G., A.N.F., Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Saleem Khan2011 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-25
  quashment of proceedingsControl of Narcotic Substances Actabetmentleave to appealmere presencelack of incriminating evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State through the Anti-Narcotics Force against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which converted the respondent's bail application into a petition for quashment of proceedings and quashed the criminal proceedings against him in FIR No. 41 of 2008 registered under Sections 6 and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the High Court appropriately quashed the proceedings against the respondent based on the lack of incriminating evidence of abetment. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent, an employee of the Civil Aviation Authority on duty at the airport, was merely standing close to co-accused from whose suitcase heroin was recovered. The Court held that mere presence near other accused does not constitute abetment without incriminating evidence. Dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment as just and fair.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an on-duty airport employee near an accused constitute abetment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the High Court convert a bail application into a petition for quashment of proceedings and quash the FIR where no incriminating evidence exists?
  • Is quashment of proceedings justified when the prosecution fails to show any incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Collector of Customs vs Bashir Khan2011 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-01-14
  criminal petitioncondonation of delaylimitationacquittalnarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court acquitting the respondent of the charge of possessing narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petition was barred by 14 days, and the petitioner sought condonation of delay on the ground that documents were misplaced and mixed up with other case files. The core legal question was whether administrative negligence and misplacement of documents by the petitioner's department constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a delay in filing a criminal petition for leave to appeal, particularly after an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the grounds presented for the delay are not recognized under the law and that condoning the delay would prejudice the valuable right of acquittal accrued to the respondent, especially in a criminal matter involving severe penalties. The petition was accordingly dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether misplacement of case documents by a government department constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a criminal petition for leave to appeal?
  • Can delay be condoned in a criminal matter where an acquittal has resulted in a valuable right for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. vs Sarfraz and 3 others2011 SCMR 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-02
  narcoticsdestruction of bulksamplescriminal petitionreduction of sentenceopium recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court modifying the conviction of the respondents from section 9(c) to section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reducing their sentence from imprisonment for life to two years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the remaining quantity of the recovered narcotics was destroyed in a transparent manner in accordance with section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with section 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, so as to legally treat the preserved samples as the whole bulk. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove through proper documentation and evidence that the destroyed bulk corresponded to the samples produced, as the destruction certificate and judicial orders lacked essential particulars such as the FIR number, date, and description. Consequently, the High Court's reduction of sentence was upheld. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution seeks to rely on samples as representing the entire destroyed bulk of narcotics under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it must strictly prove the destruction process through comprehensive records and clear evidence linking the samples to the specific recovered material.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can rely on preserved samples as the entire bulk of recovered narcotics under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without proving the proper destruction of the remaining quantity?
  • Does the failure to record essential case particulars on the destruction certificate vitiate the evidentiary value of the destroyed bulk of narcotics?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of the respondents where the connection between the sample and the bulk quantity of narcotics was not established?
  Read full judgment →
• The State and others vs Abdul Khaliq and others2011 PLD Supreme Court 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-21
  Acquittal appealConviction appealZina-bil-JabrGang RapeAnti-Terrorism ActOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) OrdinanceFIR delaySole testimonyCross-examinationCommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard ten matters, including appeals against acquittal and conviction, and a suo moto action, stemming from a gang rape case. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the sufficiency of a victim's sole testimony in rape cases, the use of previous statements in fact-finding inquiries, and the scope of interference in acquittal judgments. The Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the Lahore High Court's judgment which acquitted most accused and converted Abdul Khaliq's conviction from gang rape under Section 10(4) to Zina-bil-Jabr (rape) under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, reducing his sentence to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized that interference in acquittal judgments is narrow, requiring perversity or gross violation of law, and that delay in FIR and sole testimony are not absolute rules, depending on case-specific facts. The suo moto action was discharged.

  Read full judgment →
• The State and another vs Umer Hayat and another2011 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-27
  narcotic substancesforfeiture of assetsconfiscation of propertydue processcriminal convictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed by the State against a High Court judgment that upheld a trial court's refusal to confiscate certain commercial property following the conviction of the respondent, Umer Hayat, under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in declining to order the forfeiture of property allegedly linked to the convict. The Supreme Court held that forfeiture under Section 39 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is not an automatic consequence of conviction. The Court emphasized that the trial court must be satisfied that the assets were derived or generated in contravention of Section 12 of the Act. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that forfeiture proceedings require adherence to due process, specifically mandating that the court provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person whose interests might be affected by the forfeiture order. As the property in question was not registered in the convict's name and the actual owners were not impleaded, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the forfeiture of assets under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, an automatic consequence of a conviction for a narcotics offense?
  • What procedural requirements must be satisfied before a Special Court can order the forfeiture of assets under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a court order the forfeiture of property that is not registered in the name of the convict without impleading the actual owners?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauqir Ahmed vs Tauqir Ahmed and others2011 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-09
  acquittalappreciation of evidenceinterested witnesseschance witnessescriminal appealleave to appealconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter where the respondents were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan, in a judgment dated 21-12-2000, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of acquittal by the lower courts warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court, which had determined that the prosecution witnesses were interested and chance witnesses whose credibility had been severely shaken during cross-examination, rendering the prosecution's case doubtful. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no breach of recognized principles of criminal justice administration had been demonstrated by the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, affirming that interference is only warranted when there is a violation of established legal principles regarding the appreciation of evidence, as laid down in precedents such as Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal by lower courts?
  • Are close relatives of a deceased person necessarily considered interested witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Does the suppression of evidence by prosecution witnesses justify the rejection of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The State2011 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-30
  double murderdeath sentencecompromise of offencefasad-fil-arzocular evidencemitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a double murder. The appellant sought to compound the offence through a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and whether the court should permit a compromise or mitigate the sentence under the doctrine of fasad-fil-arz. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular and medical evidence consistent and reliable, rejecting the appellant's plea of innocence. Regarding the compromise, the Court held that while the murder of the first victim was intentional, the death of the second victim occurred during a scuffle while the appellant was fleeing, lacking the element of pre-planning. Consequently, the Court determined that the crime did not exhibit the brutality or shocking nature required to invoke fasad-fil-arz to deny mitigation. The Court dismissed the application for compromise but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, ruling that the capital punishment was disproportionate given the circumstances of the second killing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of fasad-fil-arz preclude the mitigation of a death sentence when the offence was not committed in a brutal or shocking manner?
  • Can a court convert a death sentence to life imprisonment after dismissing an application for compromise?
  • Is a compromise under Section 345(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically binding on the court in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz-Ud-Din and others: In re Human Rights vs Not2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-28
  Civil service promotionBS-22 promotionDiscretionary powersStructured discretionRule of lawDue processMerit principleSeniority-cum-fitnessJudicial reviewFundamental rightsConstitutional jurisdictionActing charge appointmentRules of BusinessEquality before law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned Human Rights Cases challenging promotions of civil servants from BS-21 to BS-22 in various occupational groups, alleging violations of constitutional principles, merit, seniority, and fair play. The core legal questions revolved around the exercise of discretionary powers by the competent authority in the absence of specific promotion rules for BS-22, and whether such exercise adhered to principles of structured discretion, transparency, and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court accepted the petitions, setting aside the promotion notifications. The Court held that the promotions were made in complete disregard of the law, without adherence to the Rules of Business, and without proper application of mind or transparent consideration of all eligible officers. The competent authority failed to follow principles of structured discretion, rule of law, due process, and equality. The Court emphasized that while promotion is not a right, the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law is fundamental, and seniority plays a decisive role when officers have equal merit and eligibility. Arbitrary

  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz Ud Din and others vs Federation of Pakistan2011 PLJ SC 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servantspromotion to BS-22structuring of discretionfundamental rightsrules of businessgood governanceconstitutional petitionseniority and merit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from human rights applications filed by civil servants challenging the promotion of officers from Basic Pay Scale 21 (BS-21) to Basic Pay Scale 22 (BS-22) by the Federal Government, alleging violations of merit, seniority, and constitutional principles. The core legal questions revolved around whether the executive's unguided discretion in making selections to top civil service grades without statutory rules or adherence to the Rules of Business violates fundamental rights and principles of good governance, and whether eligible senior officers possess a right to be fairly considered. The Supreme Court held that while promotion itself is not a vested right, civil servants have an inalienable right to be considered fairly and transparently on merit. The Court ruled that the executive discretion exercised without rules or structured criteria, and in disregard of the Rules of Business, was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The key principles laid down include that wide discretionary powers must be structured in accordance with settled administrative law principles, that merit must be determined transparently by comparing all eligible candidates, and that the executive is bound by the rule of law and constitutional mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the executive has unbridled discretion to promote civil servants to selection posts without framing rules or applying structured criteria?
  • Does a civil servant have a legally enforceable right to be considered for promotion based on merit and seniority?
  • Can executive actions regarding civil service promotions be subjected to judicial review under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Whether failure to follow the Rules of Business while making high-level appointments renders the promotion notifications illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali Baqar vs New Goodwill Computers and others2011 SCMR 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-31
  fair rentrent fixationtenancy agreementsecurity depositstatutory jurisdictionSindh Rented Premises Ordinancewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the fixation of fair rent for commercial premises. The appellant-landlord filed an application under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking an increase in rent after twelve years of tenancy. The Rent Controller and the appellate court granted a 10% increase, but the High Court set aside these orders, citing a prior agreement between the parties that prohibited rent increases in exchange for a security deposit. The Supreme Court addressed whether such a private agreement could oust the statutory jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix fair rent. The Court held that the Rent Controller possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine fair rent under the Ordinance, and any contractual clause attempting to waive this statutory right is illegal and unenforceable. The Court reinstated the Rent Controller’s order, ruling that a security deposit does not restrict a landlord’s right to seek fair rent fixation. The key principle established is that statutory provisions regarding rent fixation cannot be overridden by private agreements, as such clauses are contrary to public policy and the legislative intent of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private agreement between a landlord and tenant prohibiting rent increases override the statutory jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix fair rent?
  • Does the acceptance of a security deposit by a landlord preclude them from seeking an increase in rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a contractual clause that bars a party from seeking the determination of fair rent legally enforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Qayyum Piracha vs Mian Naseer Ahmed2011 SCMR 1294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-27
  leave to appealfrustration of contractejectment petitionrent controller jurisdictionphysical possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the orders of the Lahore High Court and the Additional District Judge regarding an ejectment proceeding. The core legal questions concern the application of the principles of frustration of contract under section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, the competency of an ejectment petition before a Rent Controller when the premises in issue had collapsed prior to the commencement of tenancy and the tenant was not in physical possession, and whether the dispute was confined merely to recovery of outstanding dues falling outside the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, determining that arguable points of law warranted a regular hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Have the principles of frustration of contract contained in section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 been correctly applied to the facts of this case?
  • Was an Ejectment Petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from collapsed premises competent before the Rent Controller when the tenant was not in physical possession?
  • Was the dispute between the parties confined only to recovery of some outstanding dues over which a Rent Controller had no jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Afridi vs Principal Secretary to the President2011 PLJ SC 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawlimitation periodRemoval From Service (Special Powers) Ordinancedepartmental representationService Tribunaltime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant, dismissed from service, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Service Tribunal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Ordinance is open-ended, allowing a civil servant to wait indefinitely for a decision on their departmental representation, or if it is fixed. The Supreme Court held that the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is a special law. The Court ruled that under Section 10 of the Ordinance, if no decision on a representation is communicated within 60 days of its submission, the aggrieved civil servant must file an appeal within the subsequent 30 days. The Court established the principle that this limitation period is fixed at 90 days total and is not contingent upon the actual communication of a final departmental order, thereby dismissing the appellant's plea.

  Questions settled

  • Is the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 open-ended?
  • What is the total time period allowed for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 when no decision on a representation is communicated?
  • Does the limitation period under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 apply to proceedings under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Tabassum Shahzad vs and others2011 SCMR 1886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-08-17
  dismissal from servicedepartmental inquirymisconductforged medical certificatesmala fidescross-examinationnatural justicestandard of proofservice appealabsence from duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a security Assistant Sub-Inspector from service, upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner was dismissed for misconduct, including providing forged medical certificates and unauthorized absence. The core legal questions revolved around allegations of malice and bias in the inquiry committee, the denial of cross-examination rights, and the applicability of due process and Qanun-e-Shahadat to domestic inquiries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with particularity and proved by evidence, and a presumption of regularity attaches to official acts. It further clarified that strict application of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order is not required in departmental inquiries, but principles of natural justice, including a fair opportunity for cross-examination and defense, must be adhered to. The Court found no question of law of public importance warranting interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with particularity and proved by leading evidence?
  • Whether the strict application of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is required in a departmental/domestic inquiry?
  • Whether an inquiry committee member personally verifying evidence constitutes bias or mala fides without specific proof?
  • Whether a departmental inquiry must strictly follow the procedural law as observed by regular courts and tribunals?
  • Whether principles of natural justice and fairness, including a fair chance for cross-examination, are mandatory in departmental inquiries?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zia Haider Rizvi and others vs Deputy Commissioner. of Wealth Tax, Lahore and others2011 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-05
  wealth taxtax exemptionshopbusiness propertystatutory interpretationmandatory vs directorylegislative intentHigh Court jurisdictionadvisory appealNational Assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved appeals challenging the denial of wealth tax exemption for various properties used for business, which appellants claimed as "shops." The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court, in an appeal under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, validly decided the enforceability of an exemption under Clause 12(2) of the Second Schedule, and whether the exemption was rendered inoperative due to the Federal Government's alleged non-compliance with the requirement under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Act to place amendments before the National Assembly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly considered the enforceability of the exemption. It further ruled that the requirement for placing notifications before the National Assembly under Section 5(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, is merely directory, intended for information, and not mandatory. Consequently, non-compliance with this procedural requirement does not nullify the exemption. The appeals were allowed, and the matters remanded to the High Court for decision after hearing the parties.

  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zia Haider Rizvi and others vs Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Lahore and others2011 PTD 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-05
  wealth taxexemptionstatutory interpretationmandatory and directory provisionssubordinate legislationlaying before parliamenttax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses several civil appeals arising from disputes over wealth tax exemptions claimed by property owners under Clause 12(2) of the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, for premises used as shops or business offices. The core legal question was whether an exemption notification issued by the Federal Government under section 5(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, becomes invalid or unenforceable for want of placement before the National Assembly. The Court held that the requirement of laying such a notification before the legislature is directory rather than mandatory, serving the purpose of information and general political control rather than requiring parliamentary approval for validity. Consequently, non-placement does not nullify the notification. The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of placing a notification amending the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, before the National Assembly is mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to lay a statutory notification before the legislature render the notification void or unenforceable?
  • Can the High Court in an advisory appeal under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, examine questions not raised before or decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does an exemption notification issued under section 5(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, require prior approval or voting by the National Assembly to take legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zia Haider Rfzvi And Others vs Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Lahore And Others2011 P.C.T.L.R. 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  wealth taxexemptionshopmandatory and directory provisionssubordinate legislationNational Assemblyadvisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses multiple appeals arising from decisions of the High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the denial of wealth tax exemption claimed by various property owners under Clause 12(2) of the Second Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, for premises used as shops or business offices. The core legal question was whether the exemption notification issued under Section 5(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, required approval or formal placement before the National Assembly to become effective, and whether the non-placement of such notification renders it void. The Supreme Court held that the requirement to place the notification before the legislature is merely directory rather than mandatory, intended for information and general political control rather than as a condition precedent for validity, as the statute prescribes no penal consequence or nullification for non-compliance. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments, and remanded the matters back to the High Court for fresh decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of placing a notification amending the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, before the National Assembly under Section 5(2) is mandatory or directory?
  • Does the non-placement of an exemption notification before the legislature render the notification void or ineffective?
  • Can the High Court in an advisory appeal under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, decide a question of law that did not arise out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
  • Whether a property used as a business office or shop is entitled to exemption from wealth tax under Clause 12(2) of the Second Schedule of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Shah and others vs The State2011 PSC (Crl.) 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  benami transactionforfeiture of propertycorruptionknown sources of incomenatural justiceright of hearingNAB Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected petitions challenged the judgments of the Accountability Court and the Peshawar High Court convicting the appellant, a former civil servant, under Section 9 read with Section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and ordering the forfeiture of certain properties held in the names of his dependents and alleged benamidars. The core legal question was whether properties standing in the names of third parties or benamidars could be forfeited to the State without affording those ostensible owners an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice mandate that alleged benamidars and ostensible owners of properties subject to forfeiture must be issued notice and given an opportunity of hearing and producing evidence before any adverse order or forfeiture is passed against them. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case to the Trial Court for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the affected parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether properties standing in the name of ostensible owners or benamidars can be forfeited without issuing notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the failure to provide a hearing to alleged benamidars render the forfeiture of properties under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 unsustainable?
  • Is it obligatory for the Trial Court to summon persons in whose names an accused person has purchased properties before passing an adverse order affecting their rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahir Abbas Shah vs OGDCL through M.D. Head Office, Islamabad2011 SCMR 1912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-08-19
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionstatutory rulesmaster and servantservice tribunaljurisdictioncorporate employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for want of jurisdiction, holding that the proper forum was the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the jurisdictional landscape of corporate employees following the repeal of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 and the landmark rulings in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and subsequent cases. The Court observed that employees of statutory corporations whose terms and conditions of service are governed by statutory rules may invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 if they do not fall within the definition of civil servants. Conversely, where no statutory rules exist, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. Since employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) are governed by statutory rules, the Court held that the High Court possesses jurisdiction and the Service Tribunal does not. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of a statutory corporation governed by statutory rules can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) after the repeal of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • What is the legal remedy for employees of a statutory corporation whose terms and conditions of service are not governed by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah vs Government of the Punjab and others2011 PLC (C.S) 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-03-01
  civil servantpromotioneligibilityparent departmenttransferdeputationsubstantial postservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's intra-court appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition. The appellant, a Divisional Director in the Local Fund Audit Department, had challenged the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Provincial Director, arguing that respondent No. 4 was not eligible at the relevant time because he was serving in the Finance Department and not actually holding a post of Divisional Director in the parent department. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the phrase 'holding posts of Divisional Director' as an eligibility requirement for promotion under the Punjab Local Fund Audit Department Services Rules, 1981. The Supreme Court held that the phrase means holding a substantial post of Divisional Director in the parent department, and temporary transfer to another department does not deprive a civil servant of promotion rights in their parent department. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that respondent No. 4 was eligible for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the phrase 'holding post of Divisional Director' in the promotion rules requires actual physical holding of the post at the time of promotion or a substantial post in the parent department?
  • Does the temporary transfer of a civil servant to another department deprive them of the right to be considered for promotion in their parent department?
  • Are civil servants serving on transfer in other departments eligible for promotion in their parent department based on seniority maintained therein?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State2011 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-21
  criminal appealmurderblind murderidentification paradeocular accountcontradictionsbenefit of doubtre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the High Court which dismissed the appellant's appeal and maintained his conviction under section 302(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Javed Iqbal. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained on a capital charge where the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons, no identification parade was held, the eye-witnesses failed to reasonably explain their presence at the spot at an odd hour, and material contradictions existed between their testimonies and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key principles laid down are that in cases of blind murders where assailants are not named in the F.I.R., holding a prompt identification parade is vital, the absence of which coupled with unverified presence of eye-witnesses and material contradictions renders ocular account untrustworthy, and recovery of a weapon without matching empties holds no evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on a capital charge when the initial F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons and no identification parade was conducted?
  • Does the failure to hold an identification parade render the testimony of eye-witnesses identifying an unknown accused doubtful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of the recovery of a weapon when no corresponding empty cartridges are recovered from the crime scene?
  • Are material contradictions between a witness's statement under section 161 and their testimony at trial sufficient to discredit their trustworthiness?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah vs Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others2011 PLD Supreme Court 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-12-24
  Family Court jurisdictionNikahnamaactionable claimpersonal propertydivorce damagesstatutory interpretationspecial law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of Family Courts to adjudicate claims for damages based on a pre-nuptial agreement. The respondent (wife) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 100,000, a sum stipulated in the Nikahnama and a separate agreement to be paid by the appellant (husband) in the event of a divorce. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, arguing that such a claim did not fall within the scope of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The core legal question was whether a claim for a conditional monetary payment upon divorce constitutes 'personal property and belonging of the wife' under Entry No. 9 of the Schedule to the Act. The Supreme Court held that the term 'actionable claim' as defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be imported into the Family Courts Act to expand its jurisdiction. The Court ruled that Entry No. 9 refers to tangible items or property acquired during marriage and does not encompass contingent monetary claims. Consequently, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction, and the lower courts' decrees were set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah vs Abdul Qayyum and others2011 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-07-30
  ejectmentrevenue court jurisdictionAbadi Dehtenancyagricultural landconsent to jurisdictionBazgers
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a High Court judgment that set aside orders of the Revenue authorities directing the ejectment of the respondents from residential houses. The appellant, a landlord, sought ejectment under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, alleging the respondents were former 'Bazgers' (tenants) who refused to vacate houses provided for residential purposes. The core legal question was whether the Revenue Court possessed jurisdiction to order ejectment from houses situated in 'Abadi Deh' (village site). The Supreme Court held that under Section 2(8) and Section 33 of the Ordinance, a Revenue Court's jurisdiction is limited to 'tenancy' involving land let for agricultural purposes. Since the houses were located in the village site and not on the agricultural land itself, they did not fall within the definition of 'land' or 'tenancy' under the Ordinance. The Court further clarified that consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court that otherwise lacks it under the law. Consequently, the High Court's decision declaring the Revenue orders illegal was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether residential houses situated in 'Abadi Deh' fall within the definition of 'tenancy' under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978?
  • Can a Revenue Court exercise jurisdiction over ejectment proceedings for buildings located in a village site rather than on agricultural land?
  • Does the consent or acquiescence of parties confer jurisdiction upon a court that lacks statutory authority over the subject matter?
  • Whether a landlord can invoke the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance to eject a former tenant from a house not occupied for agricultural purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Haider Kazmi vs Secretary Agriculture, Government of Punjab, Lahore2011 PLC (C.S.) 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-23
  service tribunalcivil servanttransfer orderdepartmental representationcondition precedentsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his transfer order through an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was dismissed. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the transfer order was an original order under Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, against which no departmental appeal was provided, and thus the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, holding that it is a condition precedent for a civil servant to first file a departmental appeal or representation before approaching the Service Tribunal, after waiting for ninety days. Finding that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was in accordance with mandatory legal provisions and established precedent, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as meritless, affirming that exhaustion of departmental remedies is a prerequisite for service appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether filing a departmental appeal or representation is a condition precedent before approaching the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  • Does an appeal lie to the Service Tribunal against an original transfer order without first exhausting departmental remedies?
  • What is the statutory limitation period and waiting requirement for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal after making a departmental representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kamal Shah vs Govt. of NWFP through Chief Secretary etc.2011 PLJ SC 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-01
  removal from servicewillful absenceextraordinary leaveconcurrent findings of factService Tribunalleave to appealclean hands doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Service Tribunal Peshawar, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner was removed from service following prolonged willful absence despite multiple directives, notices, and offers by the department regarding alternative postings. He claimed entitlement to extraordinary leave under the NWFP Revised Leave Rules 1981 and assailed the penalty imposed without a regular inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that concurrent findings of fact were recorded by the departmental authority, the appellate authority, and the Service Tribunal after due analysis of the evidence. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in the absence of any legal infirmity. Furthermore, constitutional jurisdiction being discretionary and equitable, relief was declined due to the petitioner's conduct. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3), the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal be interfered with by the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  • Whether an employee's willful absence from duty following expiry of sanctioned leave justifies removal from service after notice?
  • Is equitable constitutional relief available to a petitioner whose conduct demonstrates non-compliance with departmental directives?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Mehdi and others vs Province of Punjab and others2011 PLD Supreme Court 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-07-14
  review petitionres judicatarejection of plaintfinality of judgmentbar of jurisdictionlachescontempt of courtsurrendered land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a review petition seeking review of the Supreme Court judgment dated 22-03-2007, which rejected their civil suit plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. and issued contempt show-cause notices for attempting to bypass a final Lahore High Court order from 1979 regarding surrendered land claims under MLR 89. The core legal question was whether a civil suit could be competently filed to re-agitate issues previously dismissed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction on grounds including laches and failure to substantiate claims. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the High Court’s 1979 judgment had attained finality, as it was never challenged in higher forums, thereby legally estopping the petitioners from reopening the dispute via civil litigation. Reaffirming the ratio in Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan, the Court held that initiating a civil suit to bypass a final order of a superior court is barred under Section 9 C.P.C. both expressly and impliedly, as well as by Section 25 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Act, 1958.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit can be validly instituted to challenge or bypass a judgment of the High Court passed in writ jurisdiction that has attained finality?
  • Whether initiating a civil suit on a cause of action already determined by the High Court is barred under Section 9 C.P.C.?
  • Can a party re-agitate land entitlement disputes in a civil court where civil court jurisdiction is barred under Section 25 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Mehdi & others vs Province of Punjab and others2011 PLJ SC 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  review petitionres judicatawrit jurisdictionfinality of judgmentcivil suit maintainabilityland allotmentcontempt of courtouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenges a Supreme Court judgment that rejected the petitioners' plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and initiated contempt proceedings. The dispute concerns the allotment of land under Martial Law Regulation 89 of 1961, which was previously adjudicated by revenue authorities and subsequently dismissed by the Lahore High Court in 1979. The core legal question is whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge a matter already determined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, and whether such a suit is barred by the principle of finality. The Court held that once a controversy is competently adjudicated by the High Court, parties cannot bypass the appellate hierarchy by instituting a fresh civil suit. The Court affirmed that the principle of finality precludes re-litigation of settled matters, and that the civil suit was an impermissible attempt to circumvent the High Court's earlier decision. The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial hierarchy must be respected and that matters decided by superior courts cannot be reopened in subordinate civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party file a civil suit to challenge a matter that has already been adjudicated by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court operate as a bar to the filing of a subsequent civil suit on the same cause of action?
  • Is the jurisdiction of civil courts barred in matters determined under the Settlement & Rehabilitation Act 1958?
  • Does the principle of finality prevent a party from bypassing the appellate hierarchy by initiating fresh proceedings in a subordinate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haroon Ali Rizvi vs Government of Sindh and others2011 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-29
  service appeallimitationtime-barredpromotionsenioritydate of knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the promotion of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Assistant Directors Fisheries (BS-17) made in 1990 by the Government of Sindh. The petitioner, claiming seniority and asserting that the said respondents lacked the requisite educational qualifications, filed a departmental appeal in 2006, which remained dormant, and subsequently approached the Sindh Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as hopelessly time-barred. The core legal question is whether the service appeal filed after an abnormal delay of sixteen years, lacking a comprehensible explanation for the delay and a precise date of knowledge regarding the alleged disqualification, is maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the petition and underlying appeals were barred by time, as the petitioner failed to provide a precise date or source of knowledge regarding the ineligibility and approached the authorities with an unexplained, abnormal delay. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that unexplained and abnormal delay in challenging promotions, coupled with the absence of a definite date of knowledge of disqualification, renders service appeals hopelessly time-barred and not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a service appeal filed after an abnormal delay of sixteen years against a promotion is barred by limitation?
  • Can a service appeal be entertained when the petitioner fails to establish the precise date and source of knowledge regarding the alleged disqualification of respondents?
  • Does the promotion of allegedly unqualified civil servants warrant interference by the Supreme Court when challenged with inordinate and unexplained delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Dilawar Madad vs Government of Pakistan and others2011 PLC (C.S.) 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-11-11
  service lawlimitation periodcompulsory retirementdemotiondepartmental representationservice tribunalRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against his demotion. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent corporation, was demoted from Pay Group VII to VI on 17-5-2002 under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He failed to challenge this order for several years, instead filing multiple belated representations. The core legal question was whether the appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred and whether the petitioner could extend limitation periods by filing repeated, belated representations. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s cause of action arose upon the communication of the demotion order, and he could not unilaterally extend the limitation period by filing representations years after the fact. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunals Act requires appeals to be filed within the prescribed statutory period. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the demotion was time-limited, noting the Ordinance empowered the authority to impose such penalties without temporal restrictions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the appeal was clearly time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant unilaterally extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal by submitting repeated, belated departmental representations?
  • Does the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 impose a specific time limit on the duration of a penalty of reduction to a lower post or pay scale?
  • When does the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal commence in cases where a departmental representation has been filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Ali Shah Bukhari vs The State and others2011 SCMR 1644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-26
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismcriminal procedureevidentiary valueprima facie casebail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal, converted into an appeal, challenges the Lahore High Court's refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving multiple offences, including sections 324, 395, 342, 148, 149, 353, 186, 224, and 225 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the prima facie weakness of the prosecution's evidence regarding the alleged offences. The Supreme Court observed that the applicability of section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was suspect due to the lack of forensic evidence and injuries. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation agency declared four accused innocent, reducing the number of culprits below the threshold for section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the alleged robbery of mobile phones remained unverified. Additionally, the court held that the absence of 'serious' violence against police personnel rendered the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 doubtful. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that where prosecution evidence is prima facie weak and doubtful, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of forensic evidence linking a weapon to the crime scene render the application of section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, doubtful for bail purposes?
  • Can the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 be invoked in the absence of 'serious' violence endangering life or property?
  • Does the reduction of the number of accused persons below five during investigation affect the applicability of section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Abbas vs The State and another2011 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-23
  custody of case propertycriminal breach of trustsuperdarisurrender of possessionreview petitionforged documents
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing his review application regarding the surrender of a car and its registration book, which were the subject matter of an F.I.R. registered under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner claimed the car was transferred to him by his late brother, whereas the complainant, his brother's ex-wife, alleged forgery of the divorce deed and vehicle transfer. The Supreme Court considered the disputed surrender of the vehicle, the pending criminal challan, and parallel civil proceedings. The Court held that it would not interfere with the custody of the car at this preliminary stage, declining to resolve the ownership dispute while criminal proceedings were ongoing. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition by directing the trial court to decide the custody and disposition of the case property on merits under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within four weeks, subject to the respondent furnishing security bonds, uninfluenced by prior observations of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the interim custody of case property when allegations of forgery and parallel civil proceedings are pending?
  • Can a trial court determine the custody of case property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 independently of observations made in prior bail proceedings?
  • Whether the custody of a vehicle subject to criminal investigation should be adjudicated by the trial court after examining relevant documents and hearing the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court of PakistaniMs. Kauser Perveen and anothers vs Kasb2011 CLD 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-20
  auction saleexecution of decreeproprietary rightsleave to appealundivided property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by individuals claiming to be neither defendants nor mortgagors in a suit filed by the respondent bank, yet whose property was allegedly sold in execution of a decree obtained by the bank. The core legal questions involve whether third-party co-owners can be deprived of their proprietary rights in undivided auctioned property and whether an auction sale is vitiated due to the auction-purchaser's failure to deposit the balance payment within the stipulated fifteen-day period. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these aspects, noting that the petitioner deposited a sum to defray auction costs and cover the auction amount. The Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine the validity of the auction sale and the protection of third-party proprietary rights, directing the appeals to be fixed for hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether third-party co-owners can be deprived of their proprietary rights in a property sold in execution of a decree when they are neither defendants nor mortgagors?
  • Does the failure of an auction-purchaser to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period vitiate the auction sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association through Secretary vs Federation of Pakistan and others2011 PLD Supreme Court 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-08-30
  constitutional petitioninterim reliefadditional judgesjudicial tenureconstitutional voidinterim arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from constitutional petitions filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association and others challenging certain constitutional provisions. During the pendency of these petitions, the Chief Justices of the provincial High Courts requested directions regarding several Additional Judges whose one-year tenures were expiring. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court could grant interim relief to allow these Additional Judges to continue performing their duties to avoid a constitutional void and legal complications while the main petitions remained sub judice. Relying on its past precedent in Wukala Mahaz v. Federation of Pakistan, the Supreme Court held that it possesses the authority to pass interim orders during the pendency of constitutional challenges. To prevent a judicial and constitutional vacuum, the Court directed that the Additional Judges of all four High Courts continue to perform their functions as Additional Judges till further orders, subject to the final decision of the main petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant interim relief to prevent a constitutional void while a challenge to constitutional provisions is pending?
  • Whether Additional Judges of the High Courts can be allowed to continue performing their functions under an interim arrangement pending final adjudication of their appointment process?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to pass interim orders that temporarily affect the operation of impugned constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.24 of 2010 and Human Rights Cases Nos. 57701P, 57719G, 57754P, 58152P, 59036S, 59060P, 54187P & 58118K of 2010 vs Not2011 PLD Supreme Court 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-27
  Suo MotuHajj scamre-employmentcivil servantscontract appointmentsuperannuationgood governancerule of lawFIA
  Summary & questions settled

  This Suo Motu case involves the Supreme Court of Pakistan's oversight of the Hajj scam investigation and the legality of re-employing retired civil servants on a contract basis. The Court examined the appointment of an Additional Director General of the FIA to supervise the investigation, noting that statutory requirements under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, must be met for valid supervision. A significant legal question arose regarding the re-employment of nine senior police officers after their superannuation. The Court observed that such re-employments prima facie violated Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Esta Code. The Court held that strict adherence to these provisions is essential for the rule of law, constitutionalism, and good governance. It emphasized that unauthorized re-employments block the promotion of serving officers and undermine the efficiency of the police force. The Court directed the Federal and Provincial governments to review all such contract appointments to ensure compliance with the law and to rectify any omissions before the next hearing.

  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.13 of 2009: In the matter of vs Not2011 PLD Supreme Court 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-03-15
  Suo Motu caseJoint Venture AgreementCDA OrdinanceUltra vires regulationDelegated legislationTransparency in contractsPublic interestJudicial reviewArbitrarinessMala fidesConstitutional rightsLand developmentCapital Development AuthorityCooperative Housing Society
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court addressed a Suo Motu case concerning a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and Messrs Multi Professional Cooperative Housing Society (MPCHS) for land development in Sector E-11, Islamabad, following allegations of an underhand deal. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of CDA's Islamabad Capital Territory (Zoning) Regulations, 1992, specifically Regulation 4(1)A(iv) allowing private schemes in Zone 1, and the transparency and legality of the JVA itself. The Court held that Regulation 4(1)A(iv) was inconsistent with Sections 12 and 13 read with Sections 2(a) and (j) of the CDA Ordinance, 1960, rendering the JVA inoperative and ineffective. The Court found the transaction lacked transparency, fair competition, and was tainted by the CDA's abdication of its statutory duty to clear land from illegal occupants. It reiterated that delegated legislation cannot contradict or exceed the scope of its parent statute, and public bodies must act transparently and without arbitrariness in contractual matters affecting public interest.

  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.10 of 2011: In the matter of: [Brutal Killing of a Youngman by Rangers] vs Not2011 PLD Supreme Court 799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-10
  suo motuextrajudicial killingSindh Rangerspolice highhandednessright to lifeanti-terrorismtransfer of officersspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu case was initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan following the brutal killing of a young man, Sarfraz Ahmed, by Sindh Rangers personnel in Karachi, an incident captured on video and widely broadcasted by electronic media. The video evidence showed the deceased being overpowered, shot at close range while empty-handed, and left to bleed to death without medical assistance. The Court observed that the Rangers and local police colluded to cover up the incident by registering false cross-FIRs alleging self-defense against a dacoit. The core legal questions centered on the scope of the Rangers' authority to open fire under the law, the state's constitutional obligation to protect citizens' lives under Article 9, and the integrity of the investigation given the high-level cover-up. The Supreme Court held that the Rangers had no authority to open fire on an overpowered individual, citing precedent that limits such powers. To ensure an impartial investigation, the Court ordered the immediate transfer of the Provincial Police Officer of Sindh and the Director General of Rangers Sindh, and directed a reputable DIG to complete the investigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 within seven days, with the trial court ordered to conclude proceedings on a day-to-day basis within thirty days.

  Questions settled

  • Do law enforcement agencies or Rangers have the authority to open fire on an unarmed individual who has already been overpowered?
  • Can the Supreme Court order the transfer of high-ranking police and paramilitary officers to ensure an impartial criminal investigation?
  • What is the duty of the state and law enforcement agencies under Article 9 of the Constitution when a citizen's life is threatened in their presence?
  • Can a trial court be directed by the Supreme Court to conduct a criminal trial on a day-to-day basis with a strict statutory deadline?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No. 6 of 2010: In re vs Not2011 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-02-14
  minimum wageunskilled workerslabour rightssuo motustatutory compliancelabour laws enforcement
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu matter concerns the enforcement of minimum wage standards for unskilled workers and labourers across Pakistan. The core legal question addressed is whether the government and relevant authorities are fulfilling their statutory obligations to ensure that unskilled workers, including security guards, receive the mandated minimum wage of Rs. 7,000 per month as prescribed by law. The Supreme Court reviewed compliance reports from the Islamabad Capital Territory and all four provinces. The Court held that the government is legally bound to implement the relevant labour laws and ensure the payment of the fixed minimum wage in both public and private sectors. The ratio of the decision emphasizes the state's affirmative duty to enforce statutory wage protections. The key principle laid down is that the state must proactively monitor, prosecute violators, and establish mechanisms, such as complaint cells, to guarantee that unskilled workers receive their legally entitled minimum remuneration in accordance with the Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance, 1969, and the constitutional right to dignity and livelihood.

  Questions settled

  • Is the government legally bound to ensure the payment of the prescribed minimum wage to unskilled workers in both public and private sectors?
  • Does the failure to pay the statutory minimum wage to unskilled workers constitute a violation of the Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No. 24 of 2010: In the matter of vs Not2011 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-03-11
  suo motucontract employmentsuperannuationright to equalitydiscriminatory treatmentdisciplinary forcespublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Suo Motu case concerns the legality and propriety of re-employing government officials on contract basis after their superannuation, particularly within disciplinary forces like the Police and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The Supreme Court examined whether the retention of specific officers, while others in similar positions were terminated, constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of constitutional guarantees. The Court scrutinized the government's justification for retaining the Director-General of the FIA, which was purportedly based on national security requirements, and reviewed classified documentation provided by the Secretary Interior. The core legal question addressed was whether the selective retention of contract employees, despite the termination of others similarly situated, violates the principle of equality before the law. The Court emphasized that the government must ensure non-discriminatory application of its employment policies. The proceedings were adjourned to allow the Federation to file a comprehensive reply regarding the status of contract employees across various ministries, with the Court directing the Secretary Establishment to compile complete data to ensure transparency and compliance with constitutional standards regarding public employment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the selective retention of a contract employee in a disciplinary force, while others similarly placed are terminated, constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the government justify the retention of a contract employee after superannuation solely on the basis of national security without demonstrating a non-discriminatory policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No. 18 of 2010: In the matter of Violation of Public2011 PLD Supreme Court 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contempt of courtjudicial independenceobstruction of justicesuo motuexecutive interferenceinvestigation supervisionNICL scam
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu matter concerns the obstruction of a Supreme Court-mandated investigation into the NICL financial scam. The core legal question was whether the executive branch’s issuance of a notification disassociating the investigating officer, who had been specifically appointed by the Court to supervise the case, constituted contempt of court. The Court held that the actions of the Director-General of the Federal Investigation Agency and other high-ranking officials, including the Secretaries of Interior and Establishment and the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, amounted to willful defiance of judicial orders. The Court determined that these officials acted in concert to create obstacles in the investigation, thereby interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings. The key principle laid down is that executive actions, even those framed as administrative, cannot be utilized to frustrate, undermine, or obstruct the implementation of judicial directives. Any administrative maneuver that effectively nullifies a court’s order regarding an ongoing investigation constitutes contempt, as it directly interferes with the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the executive's removal of an officer appointed by the Supreme Court to supervise an investigation constitute contempt of court?
  • Can administrative notifications be used to frustrate or obstruct the implementation of judicial orders?
  • Does the collective action of high-ranking officials to disassociate an investigating officer from a court-mandated task amount to willful defiance of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Moto Action regarding Non-Payment of Benevolent Grant to the applicant Mst. Bushra w/o Syed Yousaf Shah vs Not2011 PLJ SC 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-07-23
  suo moto actionbenevolent grantPakistan Railwaysfundamental rightsequalitydiscriminationwidows
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo moto matter was initiated upon the grievance of a widow of a Pakistan Railways employee regarding the non-payment of revised rates of monthly benevolent grant and discrimination in benevolent fund rates between Pakistan Railways widows and widows of other federal government departments, allegedly violating fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The core legal question addressed whether the disparity in benevolent grant rates constituted unlawful discrimination against railway employees' families. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition after the Chairman of Pakistan Railways placed on record a notification adopting the federal rates of disbursement of benevolent fund grants for the Ministry of Railways and its attached departments with retrospective effect from 1st December 2003, thereby removing the highlighted anomaly. The key principle laid down is that state departments must ensure parity in welfare benefits such as benevolent grants to avoid discriminatory treatment violating constitutional equality.

  Questions settled

  • Does a disparity in the rates of benevolent grants between railway employees' families and other federal government employees violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the Supreme Court take suo moto notice regarding the non-payment of revised benevolent grants to widows of railway servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad (decd) through L.Rs, vs Muhammad Yousuf2011 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-07-22
  sale deedfraud and misrepresentationparda nasheen ladyburden of proofmarginal witnessescivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision judgment whereby a suit for declaration seeking cancellation of a sale deed on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation was finally decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The core legal question concerned the validity of the sale deed executed by an illiterate parda nasheen lady and whether the defendants had discharged the heavy onus of proving the transaction and the payment of consideration in accordance with the law of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to produce adequate marginal witnesses and reliable evidence to prove the execution of the sale deed and the exchange of sale consideration, and that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that heavy onus lies on the beneficiary to prove a transaction involving an illiterate parda nasheen lady, requiring strict compliance with evidentiary requirements regarding marginal witnesses and payment of consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof is discharged when the beneficiary of a sale deed executed by an illiterate parda nasheen lady fails to produce the required number of marginal witnesses?
  • Is a sale deed valid when the payment of consideration and the identity of the executant are not proved through reliable evidence?
  • Whether the High Court can reappraise evidence in civil revision to reverse concurrent findings if the trial court ignored material aspects of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sudheer Akhtar vs The State2011 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-04
  leave to appealreappraisal of evidenceocular accountmedical evidencechance witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter where the petitioner challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had upheld a conviction. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged with significant delay and was recorded at the spot by police acting on undisclosed information. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the prosecution's eye-witnesses were related, inimical, and chance witnesses requiring independent corroboration, that the motive remained unproven, and that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The petitioner further alleged that the High Court's judgment lacked a serious appraisal of the evidence, relying instead on conjectures and surmises. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both the petitioner and the Additional Prosecutor-General for the State, allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal. The Court held that a reappraisal of the evidence available on the record is necessary to ensure a proper judicial determination of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a reappraisal of evidence warranted when the High Court's judgment is alleged to be based on conjectures and surmises?
  • Does the conflict between medical evidence and ocular account justify the grant of leave to appeal in a criminal case?
  • Are related and inimical witnesses required to be corroborated by independent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Subeh Sadiq alias Saabo alias Kalu vs The State and others2011 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirylalkarafalse implicationsection 497 Cr.P.C.prior enmityno recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 PPC. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the FIR attributed only a general lalkara and collective firing to the petitioner without specifying any injury, no weapon was recovered, and the investigating officer determined that he was unarmed and had caused no injury. Given deep-seated prior enmity between the parties, the court noted the possibility of false implication to spread the net wide. Furthermore, as investigation was complete, his physical custody was no longer required. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail under section 497(2) Cr.P.C., holding that where an accused is found unarmed, attributed no specific injury, and faced with potential false involvement due to enmity, the case falls within further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of general lalkara without attribution of a specific injury entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether the non-recovery of a weapon and an investigating officer's finding that the accused was unarmed make a case one of further inquiry?
  • Can the possibility of spreading the net wide due to previous enmity be considered a valid ground for granting bail under section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar (Rtd.) Abdul Majeed & another vs Mulazim Hussain Shah &2011 PLJ SC 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Qatl-i-Amdmurderdeath sentenceimprisonment for lifemitigating circumstancesgrave and sudden provocationsingle fire shot
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from a murder case where the appellant was convicted for Qatl-i-Amd involving a single firearm shot. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in commuting the sentence of death to imprisonment for life based on provocation and mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court held that while death is the normal penalty for murder, the presence of mitigating circumstances, such as grave and sudden provocation stemming from an altercation where the deceased had abused the appellant's mother, justified the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. The Court laid down the principle that the appropriateness of life imprisonment versus the death penalty in Qatl-i-Amd cases must be adjudged objectively, keeping in view the specific circumstances, weapon used, manner of commission, and nature of the motive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a single fire shot in a murder case necessarily warrants the normal penalty of death?
  • Can the High Court's conversion of a death sentence to life imprisonment be sustained under circumstances of grave and sudden provocation?
  • What factors must be considered by the court when adjudging whether to award death or imprisonment for life for the offence of Qatl-i-Amd?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Yasin Memon alias Yasin Memon and another2011 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-05
  appeal against acquittalAnti-Terrorism Actocular evidenceofficial witnessessubordinate personnel testimonymisreading of evidencespot arrestweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed by the State against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which had acquitted the respondents by reversing their convictions under Section 302(b) PPC and Section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The respondents were charged with firing at a Rangers patrolling party in broad daylight, killing a Lance Naik, and were apprehended at the spot with crime weapons. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents by disregarding credible ocular evidence on conjectural grounds, such as the witnesses being subordinate Rangers personnel and minor investigative gaps. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the four natural, consistent, and unshaken eyewitnesses proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court fell into patent misreading and non-reading of evidence by relying on irrelevant factors. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal judgment, and convicted the respondents under Section 302(b) PPC and Section 7(1)(a) ATA 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eyewitnesses who are subordinate personnel of a complainant be discarded merely on account of their official subordination?
  • Does an acquittal based on minor investigation omissions and fanciful reasons constitute a patent misreading of evidence justifying reversal by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether direct and consistent ocular evidence from witnesses with no prior animosity towards the accused is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in an anti-terrorism murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and anothers vs Javaid2011 CLD 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-02-14
  life insuranceuberrima fidesutmost good faithliquidated damagesadditional evidencemarked documentinsurance claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a suit filed by the respondent, the nominee and legal heir of the deceased policyholder, seeking recovery of the insured amount under two life insurance policies along with liquidated damages. The Insurance Tribunal decreed the suit, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the deceased breached the principle of utmost good faith (uberrima fides) by concealing a pre-existing medical condition, and that the courts below erred in refusing to summon a doctor to prove a medical certificate. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence establishing concealment or breach of utmost good faith. The Court further ruled that the medical certificate could not be proved through additional evidence as it was neither filed with the written statement nor relied upon in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the withholding of the insurance claim was without reasonable excuse, justifying the award of liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party introduce a medical certificate through additional evidence if it was not filed or relied upon with the written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a document that is merely marked, but not formally produced and proved in evidence, be considered legal evidence of a fact by the court?
  • Under what circumstances is an insurance company liable to pay liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →