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.

• Adnan A. Khawaja Versus The State2012 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-01-10
  contempt of courtnon-implementation of judgmentconstitutional obligationexecutive defiancedisqualificationoath of officeNational Accountability Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves the continued non-implementation of the judgment in Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265) by the Federal Government and the National Accountability Bureau, specifically regarding the failure to proceed against certain individuals involved in unlawful appointments and misuse of authority. The core legal question concerns the constitutional obligations of executive and judicial authorities to obey and execute the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the legal consequences of wilful defiance by public functionaries, including the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau. The Court held that the persistent refusal to implement its judgments violates constitutional commands, the rule of law, and official oaths. The Supreme Court outlined six potential legal and constitutional options available to address this defiance, including initiating contempt proceedings, examining disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution for breach of oath, appointing a commission for execution, and addressing misconduct of the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau. The key principle laid down is that obedience to the Constitution and judgments of the apex Court is an inviolable obligation, and executive non-compliance cannot be permitted to subvert the constitutional balance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the executive authorities are legally bound to implement the judgments and directions of the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the persistent refusal of the Prime Minister to execute a final judgment of the Supreme Court attract a declaration regarding qualifications under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What are the legal consequences under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 of a failure by the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau to initiate proceedings against persons involved in misuse of public authority?
  • Can wilful disobedience of a Supreme Court judgment by public functionaries form the basis of contempt of court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Higher Education Commission through Project Manager Versus Sajid Anwar2012 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-19
  Exit Control ListFreedom of movementFundamental rightsService bondAdministrative excessConstitutional petitionHigher Education Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the placement of scholarship recipients on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The core legal question was whether the HEC could lawfully restrict the movement of scholarship recipients by placing them on the ECL or a watch list due to an alleged breach of a service bond agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decision that the HEC’s actions were unlawful. The Court held that the HEC lacked the authority to restrict the fundamental rights of citizens under the guise of enforcing a private contract. The Court established that fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of movement under Article 15 of the Constitution, cannot be curtailed by administrative action without specific legal authority. Disputes arising from breach of contract or service bonds must be resolved through civil litigation rather than coercive, extra-legal measures like travel restrictions or detention.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government entity restrict a citizen's right to travel abroad to enforce a private service bond agreement?
  • Does the Higher Education Commission have the legal authority to place scholarship recipients on the Exit Control List for breach of contract?
  • Is the right to freedom of movement under Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 subject to administrative restrictions not grounded in law?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a government entity seeking to enforce a service bond against a scholarship recipient?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Shafay Ali Khan Versus Lahore High Court, Lahore2012 SCMR 1757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-05-29Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Lahore Versus Mrs. Shahida Anwar2012 SCMR 1698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafqat Parveen Versus Muhammad Iftikhar Amjad2012 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-07-06Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed Bhatti Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O. Information Technology and Telecommunication2012 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-10-07
  PTCLstatutory rulesterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionreorganizationpensionary benefitstransferred employees
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals were filed by former departmental employees of the Telephone and Telegraph Department who became employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and subsequently transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). They challenged a Division Bench decision of the Sindh High Court which dismissed their constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 on the ground that PTCL lacked statutory rules of service, relying on PIAC v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman. The Supreme Court examined whether the terms and conditions of service of employees transferred from the T&T Department to PTCL retained statutory force under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996. The Court held that section 9 of the 1991 Act and section 35(2) read with section 36 of the 1996 Act explicitly protected and adopted the existing service rules by reference, prohibiting any variation to the employees' disadvantage. Consequently, these terms had statutory force. The Supreme Court allowed C.A. No. 241/2011 directing implementation of an unappealed Service Tribunal order, and remanded C.A. Nos. 239/2011 and 240/2011 to the High Court for adjudication on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Do the rules governing the terms and conditions of civil servants transferred to PTCL under statutory reorganization retain statutory force?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained by PTCL employees whose pre-existing statutory terms of service are protected by law?
  • Is PTCL empowered to alter the terms and conditions of service of employees transferred under section 35 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996 to their disadvantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan A. Khawaja Versus State2012 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-07-12
  contempt of courtjudicial implementationconstitutional immunityChief ExecutiveArticle 248executive complianceDr. Mubashir Hasan case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the ongoing implementation proceedings regarding the Supreme Court’s directions in the Dr. Mubashir Hasan case, specifically the requirement to address Swiss authorities. The core legal question was whether the incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan could defer compliance with the Court’s directive by seeking further legal opinions from the Ministry of Law or by invoking constitutional immunity. The Court held that the Prime Minister, as the Chief Executive of the Federation, is legally obligated to implement the Court’s directions immediately. The Court rejected the government's attempt to revisit the issue of immunity, noting that previous arguments regarding Article 248 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, had already been addressed and settled in contempt proceedings against the former Prime Minister. The Court affirmed that the incumbent Prime Minister, having succeeded his predecessor, is bound by the same judicial orders. The key principle laid down is that the Chief Executive cannot shift the responsibility of non-compliance to advisors, and judicial directives must be executed regardless of any contrary advice or claims of immunity.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Prime Minister of Pakistan bound to implement the Supreme Court's directions regardless of advice tendered by legal advisors?
  • Does the immunity provided under Article 248 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, excuse the Prime Minister from complying with a specific judicial order?
  • Can an incumbent Prime Minister shift the responsibility for non-compliance with a court order to his predecessor's actions or advice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohyuddin Hashmi Versus Allama Iqbal Open University through Vice-Chancellor2012 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Nazar Khan2012 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-08-17
  bail cancellationlalkaradelay in trialjudicial discretioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an impugned judgment of the High Court whereby bail was granted to the respondent in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 337F(i), 337A(i) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether bail was rightly granted to the accused on the grounds of attribution of a 'lalkara' role and prolonged delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting bail on the basis of a 'lalkara' role and a delay of over six years in concluding the trial was neither arbitrary nor against the law declared, noting that the argument regarding the trial being at its final stages pertains to judicial propriety rather than constituting an absolute legal bar. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the attribution of a 'lalkara' role is a valid ground for granting bail in a capital charge?
  • Does a delay of over six years in the conclusion of a trial constitute a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is the rule against granting bail when a trial is at its final stages an absolute legal bar or a matter of judicial propriety?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Mst. Azmat-E-Bibi2012 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-06-13Read full judgment →
• C.V. "Lemon Bay" Versus Sadruddin2012 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-05-09
  admiralty jurisdictionaction in remaction in personamsister shipbill of ladingcontract of carriageforged bank guaranteearrest of vessel
  Summary & questions settled

  These four appeals as of right were filed against a common judgment of an appellate Bench of the Sindh High Court that modified trial court decrees in two admiralty suits. The plaintiff had sued shipping companies, agents, and vessels for releasing cargo against forged bank guarantees without authorization. The trial court decreed the suits in part. On appeal, the appellate Bench reduced the decreed amounts because certain sister ships carrying part of the cargo were not impleaded as defendants and lacked specific in rem pleadings under Section 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, holding that even if an action in rem or arrest against sister ships was not maintainable due to procedural defects, a decree in personam could still be properly passed against the shipping companies and agents based on the contract of carriage and breach of agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's appeals, dismissed the defendants' appeals, and restored the trial court decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree in personam be passed against a shipping company for breach of carriage agreement even if an action in rem against a sister ship fails due to procedural defects?
  • Whether the failure to implead a sister ship or plead its relationship under Section 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 disentitles the plaintiff to an in personam decree against the carriers.
  • Does the release of cargo against forged bank guarantees constitute a breach of agreement entitling the consignor to recover damages in admiralty jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary School of Education Versus Rana Arshad Khan2012 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-29
  pro forma promotioncivil serviceretrospective effectdepartmental delaysuperannuationservice tribunalpromotion eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which directed the competent authority to process the promotion cases of retired civil servants. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Section 8(5) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which renders retired civil servants ineligible for promotion, applies retrospectively, and whether civil servants can be denied promotion due to departmental delays occurring prior to their retirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the amendment to Section 8(5) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, does not have retrospective effect. Consequently, civil servants cannot be penalized for departmental lapses in processing their promotion cases that occurred before their superannuation. The Court established that where a department delays processing a promotion, a retired civil servant remains entitled to be considered for pro forma promotion if they were otherwise eligible at the relevant time, ensuring that administrative delays do not deprive employees of their rightful service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Section 8(5) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, barring promotions for retired civil servants, have retrospective effect?
  • Can a civil servant be denied promotion due to departmental delays in processing their case that occurred prior to their retirement?
  • Is a retired civil servant eligible for pro forma promotion if they were otherwise entitled to it at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Versus Gobinda Chandra Makal2012 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-09-02Read full judgment →
• Ocean Pakistan Ltd. Versus Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad2012 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-05-25Read full judgment →
• Dilshad Begum Versus Mst. Nisar Akhtar2012 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-04-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law , Irfan Qadir2012 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-05-25
  dual nationalitydisqualification of members of parliamentsupreme court jurisdictionfundamental rightsoath of allegiance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition concerning members of Parliament holding dual nationality in alleged violation of constitutional disqualifications. The core legal questions involve whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to examine allegations of dual citizenship against members of the Senate and National Assembly, and whether parliamentarians holding foreign citizenship and taking oaths of allegiance to foreign states can continue to hold public office. The Supreme Court held that it possesses the requisite jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights and protect the Constitution, and prima facie determined that members holding dual nationalities or having abjured allegiance to Pakistan are disqualified from representing the public. Consequently, the court suspended the membership of an affected Member of the National Assembly pending final adjudication and directed submission of formal evidence regarding renunciation of foreign nationalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to examine allegations of dual nationality against members of Parliament?
  • Can a member of the National Assembly or Senate hold dual citizenship under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution?
  • What is the legal effect of taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state upon a Pakistani citizen's parliamentary membership?
  • Whether the membership of a parliamentarian admitting to dual citizenship can be suspended pending final decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Lahore Versus Ch. Abdus Sattar2012 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2012-05-11Read full judgment →
• Capt. (Retd.) Khalid Zaman Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division2011 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-10-06
  civil service senioritymilitary service creditessential servicesadministrative jurisdictionservice tribunalrepresentationPPSMB
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a former Pakistan Army Captain, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the denial of seniority benefits for his prior military service. Upon joining the Postal Group in 1992, the appellant sought seniority credit for his Army service in 2003, which the Chairman of the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board initially granted. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, following representations from affected employees. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s military service was countable towards his civil service seniority, and whether the Secretary possessed the jurisdiction to set aside the Chairman's order. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s case was factually distinguishable from the precedent relied upon, as the appellant did not fall under the 'essential services' category defined in the relevant Ordinance. The Court affirmed that the Secretary, as the head of the division, held the authority under the Civil Servants Act 1973 to entertain representations against the Board's orders. The appeal was dismissed, establishing that seniority benefits for military service are not universally applicable to all civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Is military service automatically countable towards civil service seniority for all former armed forces personnel?
  • Does the Secretary of a division have the jurisdiction to entertain a representation against an order passed by the Chairman of an attached department?
  • Can a precedent regarding seniority benefits for 'essential services' be applied to a civil servant who does not fall within that category?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulaikhan Bibi Versus Mst. Roshan Jan2011 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus State2011 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-01-05
  murderocular evidencemedical corroborationabscondencecriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Akram, for his role in a multiple-murder incident involving five deceased victims. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through ocular evidence and medical corroboration, and whether his conviction and sentence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the testimony of the complainant and an injured eyewitness, whose presence at the crime scene was verified by medical evidence, was credible and consistent. The Court noted that the specific injury attributed to the appellant—a hatchet blow—was corroborated by the postmortem report of the deceased. Furthermore, the appellant's status as an absconder for over a year provided additional support for the prosecution's case. The Court held that the appellant's case was indistinguishable from his co-accused, whose convictions had already been upheld. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment as modified by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of an injured witness at the scene of a crime provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony?
  • Can the status of an accused as an absconder serve as corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the ocular account of the specific injury is supported by the medical evidence in the postmortem report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel Versus State2011 SCMR 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-05-20
  murderdeath sentenceocular evidencerelated witnessesrecovery of crime weaponstatement under section 342 CrPCjail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner attacked his ex-wife with a sharp weapon (Chhura) at a bus stop following a marital dispute and divorce proceedings, causing her death and injuring her father. The core legal questions involved whether the testimony of interested eye-witnesses corroborated by weapon recovery and medical evidence was sufficient for conviction, and whether an unsubstantiated defence plea under Section 342 Cr.P.C. without evidence under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. could create reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that relationship alone does not discredit eye-witness testimony where it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the blood-stained crime weapon. Furthermore, an unproven defence statement unsupported by evidence carries no weight against strong prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does relationship with the deceased automatically discredit the testimony of eye-witnesses if it is otherwise consistent and corroborated?
  • Can an unsubstantiated plea raised in a statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. create reasonable doubt in the absence of supporting evidence?
  • Does a minor variation in describing a crime weapon as a Chhura or Chhuri undermine the prosecution case when it is recovered and found stained with human blood?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Versus State2011 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-12
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtocular and medical inconsistencycapital punishmentappreciation of evidenceeye-witness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death for the qatl-e-amd of the deceased. The core legal questions involve evaluating the consistency between ocular and medical evidence, the reliability of related eye-witnesses, and the validity of convicting one co-accused while acquitting another assigned an identical role. The Supreme Court held that glaring discrepancies between the ocular account of multiple shots and the medical evidence of a single injury, coupled with the unexplained failure to examine crucial independent witnesses and the likelihood that the crime was un-witnessed and occurred at night, rendered the prosecution case untrustworthy. The Court laid down the principle that when eye-witness testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence and tainted by material contradictions, and key independent witnesses are withheld, basing a capital conviction thereon causes a miscarriage of justice, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the ocular account of multiple firearm shots directly contradicts the medical evidence showing only a single injury?
  • Does the principle of sifting grain from the chaff justify convicting one co-accused while acquitting another against whom an identical role was attributed by the same witnesses?
  • Is it safe to base a capital sentence on the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses when independent material witnesses are withheld and significant investigative shortcomings exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen Versus State2011 SCMR 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-03
  qatl-e-amddeath sentencecommutation of sentenceocular accountchance witnessmotive unprovenbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for the Qatl-e-amd of the deceased, resulting in a death sentence confirmed by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular testimony, in the absence of corroborated motive and independent eyewitnesses, warranted the sustenance of the death penalty. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction for murder was maintained based on the ocular account and medical evidence, the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where motive is unproven, independent corroboration is lacking, and only a single shot is fired in broad daylight by a single accused, the rule of abundant care and caution requires the conversion of a death sentence into imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated ocular testimony of related and chance witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can the sentence of death be converted to imprisonment for life when the prosecution fails to prove the motive for the offence?
  • Is a single firearm shot fired by an accused in broad daylight sufficient to warrant the capital punishment in the absence of independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Versus State2011 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-11-28
  bail before arrestvicarious liabilitycriminal proceduremurderco-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions impugning an order of the Sindh High Court denying pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who were co-accused in a murder case involving the deceased Mst. Sajida. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail before arrest given the circumstances of the case, the lack of explanation regarding their presence at the scene, and the principle of vicarious liability at the bail stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petitions into appeals and allowed bail, holding that bail cannot be refused on the basis of alleged vicarious liability unless supported by positive evidence connecting the co-accused to the crime, particularly when the main accused had already been granted bail and the prosecution statements failed to firmly establish the sequence of events. The key principles laid down include that vicarious liability cannot be presumed without positive evidence at the bail stage and that co-accused are generally entitled to bail under similar circumstances when the principal accused has already been granted relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused to a co-accused on the basis of vicarious liability without positive evidence?
  • Is a co-accused entitled to bail when the main accused has already been granted bail under the same set of circumstances?
  • Does the absence of an explanation in the FIR regarding the presence of accused persons create a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Versus State Muhammad Zaman Bhatti2011 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Mst. Yasmeen Khan2011 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-03-09
  minoritypower of attorneyvoid ab initioNational Identity Cardprobative valuebona fide purchaserdeclaration and possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment setting aside the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration and possession filed by the respondent. The respondent challenged the validity of land exchange and sale transactions conducted by her alleged power of attorney during her minority. The core legal questions were whether the respondent had established her minority at the time of executing the power of attorney and whether transactions executed on behalf of a minor are void ab initio or merely voidable. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decree, holding that documentary evidence, including the National Identity Card, educational records, and passport, possessed strong probative value which was not rebutted by oral assertion. The Court held that any contract or transaction entered into by or on behalf of a minor is void ab initio, null and void, and completely incapable of ratification or confirmation upon attaining majority. Consequently, no valid title passed to the alleged purchasers, and protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 was denied.

  Questions settled

  • Is a power of attorney and subsequent land transaction executed on behalf of a minor void ab initio or merely voidable?
  • What is the probative value of entries in a National Identity Card in determining age when uncontradicted by equal or better evidence?
  • Can a transferee claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 where the transaction was executed on behalf of a minor without verifying the validity of the power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State2011 SCMR 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-11-03
  narcotics possessionreasonable doubtbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportdelay in sending samplesactive possessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances, specifically poppy material, under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was apprehended by police near ten sacks of narcotics, but no evidence linked him to the physical act of transporting or handling the sacks. The core legal question was whether mere proximity to contraband in a public place, without evidence of active possession or knowledge, satisfies the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's active possession or ownership of the narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the absence of independent witnesses, the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the sacks, and the unexplained inordinate delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner created significant reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court judgments, acquitted the appellant, and reaffirmed the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere proximity to contraband in a public place constitute active possession for the purpose of conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained, inordinate delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to produce independent witnesses in a public place where such witnesses were available?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Versus State2011 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-21
  capital sentencequantum of punishmentcompromiselegal heirsdeath penaltyleave to appealmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Amin, challenging the quantum of the death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The core legal question presented is whether the imposition of a capital sentence remains justified when one of the legal heirs of the deceased has entered into a compromise with the convict. The petitioner contends that the death penalty is disproportionate given this compromise and cites previous instances where the Supreme Court granted leave on identical grounds regarding the quantum of punishment. The Supreme Court, noting that the petition is pressed solely on the issue of sentencing, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the death sentence in light of the partial compromise. The Court held that the matter requires further consideration to determine if the mitigating factor of a compromise with a legal heir warrants a reduction in the sentence, thereby setting the stage for a review of the proportionality of the capital punishment in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is a death sentence justified when one of the legal heirs of the deceased has compromised with the convict?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely on the question of the quantum of punishment in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.10 of 2010 Versus2011 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sohail Butt Versus Deputy Inspector-General of Police (North) National Highway and Motorway Police2011 SCMR 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-05-20
  service appealtime-barred appealdepartmental appealunauthorized absencedisciplined forceremoval from servicesubstantial question of law of public importanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Senior Patrol Officer in the National Highways and Motorway Police, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as time-barred and on merits. The petitioner had been dismissed from service after remaining absent from duty without authorization for prolonged periods and failing to respond to disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's departmental appeal was barred by limitation for over two years, rendering both the departmental appeal and the subsequent tribunal appeal incompetent. The Court held that an appeal before the Service Tribunal is not competent if the departmental appeal is time-barred. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's conduct as a member of a disciplined force warranted no leniency, the tribunal's findings of fact were unexceptionable, and the case involved no substantial question of law of public importance as required for granting leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is competent when the departmental appeal is dismissed as time-barred?
  • Does a service dispute regarding unauthorized absence of a police officer involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can findings of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal be interfered with by the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Versus State2011 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-05-29
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencerecovery of dead bodyinsanity pleacapital punishmentQatl-e-amdpointation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant challenged his death sentence for the abduction and murder of a five-year-old child. The core legal questions concerned whether the circumstantial evidence, specifically the 'last seen' testimony and the recovery of the dead body at the appellant's pointation, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction, and whether the appellant's plea of insanity held merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken. The Court affirmed that the appellant's disclosure leading to the recovery of the victim's body, coupled with reliable last-seen evidence and a clear motive of revenge, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further rejected the insanity plea, noting that medical evaluation confirmed the appellant's sanity. The key principle laid down is that when circumstantial evidence, including disclosures leading to the recovery of incriminating items under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, forms an unbroken chain, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of direct ocular evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of a dead body at the pointation of an accused constitutes sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a plea of insanity be accepted if medical evaluation confirms the accused is a sane person?
  • Is 'last seen' evidence, when supported by other circumstantial evidence, sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Does the delay in lodging an F.I.R. necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case when the delay is explained by the complainant's search for the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Khan Versus State2011 SCMR 646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-07-23
  dying declarationbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidenceocular evidencewithholding of witnessescriminal appealtriple murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for a triple murder, initially tried under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns the reliability of a conviction based on a dying declaration and ocular testimony when the initial FIR named different suspects, the prosecution withheld key witnesses, and the incident occurred at night under conditions of poor visibility. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that a dying declaration is a weak form of evidence requiring corroboration, especially when its integrity is compromised by potential fabrication or lack of opportunity for cross-examination. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the prosecution must produce all material witnesses and that withholding witnesses who could provide corroboration creates a fatal gap in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, holding that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a dying declaration that lacks corroboration and is shrouded in doubt?
  • Does the withholding of material witnesses by the prosecution entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is a dying declaration considered a weaker type of evidence compared to testimony subject to cross-examination?
  • Should the benefit of the doubt be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case relies on evidence that is inconsistent with the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan Versus State2011 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-05-25
  murderterrorismgrave and sudden provocationidentification parademitigation of sentenceocular testimonyfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellants for offences including murder and terrorism arising from an incident at a place of worship where several persons were killed and injured. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness accounts, the identification parade, and whether a plea of grave and sudden provocation was established. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, and prompt reporting, and that the defence plea of provocation was an afterthought and rightly rejected. However, considering that certain appellants did not fire any shots or cause injuries, the Court commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment while maintaining their convictions, and partially allowed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of grave and sudden provocation cannot be claimed where the provocation was sought by the accused, and an accused who is merely present without overt acts of firing or violence may have his death sentence mitigated to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of grave and sudden provocation can be claimed when the provocation was sought by the accused?
  • Can an accused who was merely present at the crime scene without firing any shots or causing injuries be granted mitigation of the death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear as a witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. affect a self-raised defence plea?
  • Whether prompt lodging of the F.I.R. and consistent eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence are sufficient to prove a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Versus Human Rights Cases Nos. 57701-P, 57719-G, 57754-P, 58152-P, 59036-S, 59060-P, 54187-P and 58118-K of 2010.2011 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-03-01
  Hajj scamFIA investigationcontract appointmentscivil servantsjudicial oversighttransparency in investigationhuman rights case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the Supreme Court's ongoing oversight of the investigation into the Hajj scam, specifically addressing the efficacy and transparency of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The core issues involved the adequacy of the investigation, the conduct of the Director-General of the FIA, the cooperation of the State Bank of Pakistan, and the legality of contract appointments within the civil service. The Court expressed severe dissatisfaction with the FIA's investigation, noting deliberate delays and a lack of transparency that appeared to protect offenders. It directed the State Bank of Pakistan to cooperate with the FIA and mandated that the FIA actively contest bail applications to ensure lawful outcomes. The Court reaffirmed that contract appointments in the civil service are not permissible unless they strictly adhere to the conditions prescribed under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Furthermore, it established that investigating agencies must conduct transparent, impartial inquiries, and the Court may intervene to ensure institutional cooperation and compliance with statutory mandates regarding public service appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract appointments in the civil service continue without satisfying the conditions specified in the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • What is the duty of an investigating agency when accused persons are obtaining bail?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to direct the State Bank of Pakistan to cooperate with an ongoing criminal investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Khan Versus Secretary, Environment Protection2011 SCMR 572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-04Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Versus Capital City Police Officer, Lahore2011 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-03
  disciplinary proceedingsdouble jeopardycustodial deathservice tribunalcriminal acquittalservice lawpolice negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had upheld a disciplinary penalty imposed on the petitioner, a police official. The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, faced disciplinary proceedings following a custodial suicide in his room, resulting in a charge of negligence. Although the petitioner was acquitted in the related criminal case, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction in rank, later modified to the withholding of one annual increment by the appellate authority. The petitioner contended that his acquittal in the criminal case barred disciplinary proceedings under the principle of double jeopardy and that disciplinary action should have been stayed pending the criminal outcome. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that criminal and disciplinary proceedings are distinct in nature, features, and characteristics, and are not interchangeable. Consequently, the Court ruled that acquittal in a criminal trial does not preclude disciplinary action for the same underlying conduct. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy does not apply to the concurrent pursuit of disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case preclude disciplinary proceedings based on the same set of facts?
  • Are criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings synonymous or interchangeable?
  • Does the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to disciplinary proceedings following a criminal acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Versus State2011 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-21
  criminal appealocular evidenceinterested witnessmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencecriminal trespasssentence modificationrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder, robbery, and related offenses. The prosecution alleged that the appellants trespassed into the complainant's house to commit robbery, leading to the deaths of three individuals. The defense contended that the incident arose from a failed elopement attempt involving the deceased and the complainant's niece. The Supreme Court examined the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the defense's version. The Court held that while the prosecution's narrative regarding robbery was likely fabricated to conceal the true nature of the incident—an attempted abduction—the ocular evidence remained credible. The Court reaffirmed that minor contradictions do not invalidate testimony if corroborated by other material and that ocular evidence is generally preferred over medical evidence. Consequently, the Court upheld the murder convictions but converted the death sentences to life imprisonment and set aside the convictions under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, ruling that the robbery charge was unsubstantiated. The judgment emphasizes the court's duty to draw proper inferences from evidence despite the parties' attempts to suppress facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an interested witness be relied upon in a criminal case?
  • Should ocular evidence be preferred over medical evidence when there is a conflict?
  • Does the presence of minor contradictions in prosecution evidence warrant the rejection of the entire case?
  • Can a court draw inferences from evidence even when the prosecution's narrative is incomplete or distorted?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Versus State2011 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-01-05
  Qatl-e-amdQisasTa'azirTazkiya-tul-ShahoodInterested witnessChance witnessCriminal appealMedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder. The appellant, a police official, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to death as Qisas. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence and determine whether the conviction should have been under Section 302(b) rather than Section 302(a). The Court reviewed the ocular testimony, finding it credible and consistent with medical evidence, and rejected the defense's arguments regarding interested and chance witnesses. Crucially, the Court held that a conviction under Section 302(a) (Qisas) requires proof in the form of a voluntary confession or evidence satisfying the Islamic legal test of Tazkiya-tul-Shahood, as per Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Since the trial court did not conduct the requisite inquiry into Tazkiya-tul-Shahood, the conviction under Section 302(a) was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction to Section 302(b) (Ta'azir), maintaining the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an interested witness automatically discarded without corroboration?
  • Does a conviction under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the satisfaction of the Tazkiya-tul-Shahood test?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(a) be sustained if the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry into the competency of witnesses under Islamic law?
  • Is the death penalty maintainable under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as Ta'azir?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Sarwar Versus Lahore High Court2011 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-08
  judicial service rulescivil judgereasonable classificationequal protection of lawprovincial rules parityfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 7(1)(a) of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which mandates two years of law practice as an advocate for eligibility to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates, seeking parity with the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which exempt court employees from such requirement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the rules of one province can be enforced in another and whether the differing eligibility criteria violate the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that provincial service rules framed under respective provincial enactments cannot apply to another province unless formally adopted, and that the rule making different provisions for different provinces does not violate the equality clause as it constitutes a valid and reasonable classification based on territorial and administrative considerations. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the judicial service rules framed by one province be made applicable to another province without formal adoption?
  • Does the requirement of two years of law practice under the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Does the equality clause prohibit the formulation of different laws or rules for different provinces based on territorial considerations?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah Versus Government of the Punjab2011 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-02
  civil service promotionparent departmentsubstantial posttemporary transferservice rules interpretationseniorityLocal Fund Audit
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Provincial Director, Local Fund Audit Department, contending that the respondent was ineligible under the Punjab Local Fund Audit, Department Services Rules, 1981. The appellant argued that the requirement of "holding posts of Divisional Director" necessitated actual, physical presence in the department at the time of promotion, whereas the respondent was serving on transfer in the Finance Department. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on temporary transfer to another department retains eligibility for promotion in their parent department under the 1981 Rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the phrase "holding post of Divisional Director" refers to holding a substantial post in the parent department. The Court reasoned that temporary transfer does not sever the link with the parent department, nor does it deprive a civil servant of seniority or promotion opportunities. The Court affirmed that consistent departmental practice of promoting officers serving on deputation or transfer is legally sound, provided they retain their substantial post in the parent department.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of 'holding' a post for promotion purposes under the Punjab Local Fund Audit, Department Services Rules, 1981 require physical presence in the parent department?
  • Can a civil servant on temporary transfer to another department be considered for promotion in their parent department?
  • Does the holding of a substantial post in a parent department satisfy the eligibility criteria for promotion despite a temporary transfer to another department?
  Read full judgment →
• Finance Division through Secretary Versus Muhammad Aslam2011 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-09-28
  special allowanceservice tribunallimitationleave to appealquestion of lawpublic importancecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which held that the respondents, police personnel in the Telecommunication Wing of the Islamabad Capital Police, were entitled to special pay/allowances under paragraph 15 of the Finance Division's Notification dated 4-9-2001. The petitioner argued that the respondents were ineligible for such allowances and contended that the respondents' original appeals before the Tribunal were time-barred. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise the factual premise regarding the nature of the respondents' posts or the limitation issue before the Tribunal. The Court held that since the Department did not raise the limitation point in its parawise comments or during arguments before the Tribunal, it could not be agitated at the appellate stage. Finding no question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the failure to raise a factual premise in the grounds of a petition preclude the petitioner from arguing it during the hearing?
  • What constitutes a question of law of public importance sufficient to warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Revenue Division, CBR/Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad Versus Gul Muhammad2011 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-07-15
  civil servantpromotionbest of best policycriteria of excellenceFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealarbitrariness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed leave to appeal against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondents' pleas challenging their denial of promotion based on the "best of best" policy. The core legal question was whether civil servants could be denied promotion on the subjective policy of "best of best" in the absence of a well-defined, objective criteria of excellence. The Supreme Court held that promotion cannot be denied based on unguided discretion or an undefined "best of best" formula, as such supersessions lack objectivity and invite arbitrariness. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision and dismissed the petitions with costs, ruling that there must be clear, objective criteria established by the department to judge performance and comparative merit before denying promotion to eligible officers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether promotion of a civil servant can be denied on the basis of the "best of best" policy without a defined, objective criteria of excellence?
  • Does the absence of specific and objective criteria for comparative merit render the supersession of an eligible officer legally unsustainable?
  • Whether the decision-making process of a promotion board is subject to judicial scrutiny regarding objectivity and transparency?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Zubaida Khatoon Versus Mrs. Tehmina Sajid Sheikh2011 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-12-09
  service lawpromotionfitness for promotionwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalmala fidecolourable exercise of powerconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside a promotion notification, declaring it issued without lawful authority due to mala fide. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution, possesses jurisdiction to review a departmental promotion decision regarding "fitness," given the exclusion of such matters from the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Supreme Court held that while Service Tribunals lack jurisdiction to determine "fitness" for promotion, the High Court retains extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 to intervene when authorities act in violation of law, in excess of jurisdiction, or through a colourable exercise of power, such as suppressing relevant service records. The Court affirmed the High Court's annulment of the promotion notification but ruled that the High Court erred by effectively ordering the promotion itself. Instead, the Court established that the proper remedy is to remand the matter for a de novo decision by the competent Promotion Committee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to review a departmental decision regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Is the question of eligibility for promotion distinct from the question of fitness for promotion in service law?
  • Can a High Court, upon setting aside a promotion notification, direct the promotion of the aggrieved party, or must it remand the matter to the departmental authority?
  • Does the bar in Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 prevent judicial review of a promotion decision tainted by mala fide or suppression of record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Salma Moosajee Versus Federation of Pakistan2011 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-04
  leave to appealemployment claimnotification applicabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises out of two petitions challenging a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 16-4-2009. The core legal question for consideration is whether the claim of the petitioners on merits was rightly rejected despite the effective applicability of a notification dated 9-8-2002 from 1-7-2002, during the period the petitioners were admittedly in the employment of the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine this question, noting a limitation issue subject to examination at the hearing of the appeals in one of the petitions. The court directed the preparation of paper books based on the available record and granted liberty to the parties to file additional documents within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the claim of the petitioners on merit has been rightly rejected despite the effective applicability of the Notification dated 9-8-2002 from 1-7-2002?
  • Whether the grant of leave in Constitution Petition No.581-K of 2009 is subject to limitation to be examined at the time of hearing of the appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Gohar Zaidi Versus House Building Finance Corporation Masood Mukhtar Naqvi , Nemo2011 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Versus Aziz-Ur-Rehman Chaudhry2011 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-08
  service tribunalimplementation of judgmentfinality of judgmentconstitutional petitionpensionable service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh directing the implementation of a Federal Service Tribunal decision dated 26 June 2006, which had accepted the respondent's service appeal. The core legal question was whether an unchallenged judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal rendered under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is binding and executable by the organization concerned despite subsequent legal developments. The Supreme Court held that unchallenged judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal attained finality and must be implemented by concerned organizations without dragging employees into further litigation, following the principle established in Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 681). The appeal was accordingly dismissed with directions to implement the Tribunal's judgment within fifteen days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unchallenged judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal rendered under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has attained finality?
  • Are organizations bound to implement unchallenged judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal without dragging employees into further litigation?
  • Whether the High Court can direct the implementation of a Service Tribunal judgment that was not challenged before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus Chief Secretary2011 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Versus Mansoor Arif2011 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-11-17Read full judgment →
• Asif Raza Mir Versus Muhammad Khurshid Khan2011 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-07-27Read full judgment →
• Cutting of Trees for Canal Widening Project, Lahore Versus2011 SCMR 1743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-09-15Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. Versus Muhammad Bakhsh2011 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-11
  service tribunalleave to appealjurisdictionprotection of payrepeal of section 2A
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the respondent's service appeal seeking protection of pay and arrears of salary was accepted. 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. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding earlier judicial pronouncements, the repeal of section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 vide Act No. II of 2010 requires examination of whether employees of such organizations remain entitled to avail the remedy before the Service Tribunal in light of previous binding precedents. The key principle laid down is that the effect of statutory repeals on pending or decided service matters must be assessed with respect to the jurisdiction of service tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have 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 vide Act No. II of 2010 on the remedy available to employees before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Aqeel Versus State2011 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-22
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdercriminal proceduresupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, wherein the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the availability of prima facie evidence connecting him to the offence and the absence of mala fide against the complainant or the investigating officer. The Supreme Court held that ample evidence was available to connect the petitioner with the crime, and noted that a deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court upheld the cancellation of pre-arrest bail, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail will be denied where prima facie evidence connects the accused to a heinous crime and no mala fide is established against the prosecution or investigating agency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when prima facie evidence connects the accused to the offence?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Whether the absence of mala fide against the complainant or investigating officer affects a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia Malik Versus Makki Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd.2011 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-02
  auction saleexecution proceedingsbanking courtmandatory provisionsnullity of saleCode of Civil ProcedureFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment setting aside an auction sale of property confirmed by a Banking Court. The core legal question was whether a Banking Court, during execution proceedings, possesses the discretion to extend the time for depositing the balance 75% of the auction money beyond the 15-day period mandated by Order XXI, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 85 are mandatory in nature. Consequently, the failure to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated 15 days renders the auction sale a nullity, and the executing court lacks the authority to unilaterally extend this deadline. Furthermore, the Court found the auction proceedings lacked transparency, failed to specify the venue, and were procedurally defective. The Court affirmed that mandatory procedural requirements in execution proceedings cannot be waived, and non-compliance invalidates the resulting sale. The appeal was dismissed, and the execution proceedings were deemed concluded as the judgment debtor had satisfied the underlying liability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Banking Court extend the 15-day period for depositing the balance auction money prescribed under Order XXI, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to deposit 75% of the auction money within 15 days render an auction sale a nullity?
  • Are the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory in execution proceedings?
  • Can a court waive the requirement of depositing 20% of the amount under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the auction proceedings are fundamentally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Versus State2011 SCMR 1665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-02-08
  zina bil jabarrape convictionsolitary testimonycorroborationminor prosecutrixanti-terrorismcriminal appealkidnapping
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a criminal appeal by the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction for kidnapping and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of the minor prosecutrix, given the appellant's defense of false implication due to a prior family dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that a conviction may be based on the solitary statement of a prosecutrix if it is credible and inspires confidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that corroborative evidence need not cover every detail but must merely connect the accused to the crime. It was also established that the absence of physical violence marks on the victim does not negate the commission of rape. The judgment reinforces that the inherent merit of the prosecutrix's testimony is the primary test for veracity in such cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained on the solitary statement of a prosecutrix?
  • Does the absence of physical violence marks on a victim negate the commission of rape?
  • What is the required standard for corroborative evidence in cases involving the testimony of a prosecutrix?
  • Is the inherent merit of a prosecutrix's statement the primary test for determining the veracity of her testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdous Batool Versus Executive District Officer2011 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus Mst. Marriam Bibi2011 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-11-08
  inheritancecustomary lawSharia lawburden of proofsale deedRiwaj-e-aamconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment concerning the inheritance of agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the deceased's estate was governed by customary law, which would exclude daughters from inheritance, or by Sharia law, and whether the petitioners had validly proven the alleged sale of the respondents' shares. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that Sharia law applied and the alleged sale deed was unproven. The court established that the petitioners' inconsistent reliance on customary law—asserting it in one district while accepting Sharia-based inheritance in another—undermined their claim. Furthermore, the burden of proving a sale deed rests strictly on the party asserting it, requiring the production of the original document and attesting witnesses. The court also held that reliance on Riwaj-e-aam is ineffective when it contradicts the established inheritance practices of the family, and a party cannot unilaterally change their position on the validity of a suit after years of litigation without substantive legal basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inconsistent application of customary law in different districts defeat a claim that inheritance is governed by custom?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the execution of a sale deed?
  • Can a party, after years of litigation, unilaterally concede a claim to set aside a decree without valid legal grounds?
  • Is a Riwaj-e-aam document admissible if it contradicts the established inheritance practices of the family?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Forest Officer, Kasur Versus Zahid Ali2011 SCMR 1618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-23Read full judgment →
• District Coordination Officer Versus Zaheer Alam2011 SCMR 1613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-24Read full judgment →
• Executive District Officer (Edu.), Rawalpindi Versus Mst. Rizwana Kausar2011 SCMR 1581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Khan Versus Israr Ahmed2011 SCMR 1545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Versus State2011 SCMR 1533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-06
  post-arrest bailcivil disputefraudforgeryfurther inquirycriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the dispute originated from a civil transaction regarding the sale of land and that a civil suit was pending prior to the criminal registration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner made out a case for bail, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it subject to surety bonds. The court laid down the principle that where a dispute is primarily civil in nature, previous civil litigation has been initiated, and offences like forgery require further inquiry under the facts and circumstances, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when a criminal case is registered after the initiation of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does an allegation involving sections requiring further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when no recovery is to be made from him and he has been incarcerated without progress in recording witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Versus Deputy Inspector-General of Police2011 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-21Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Farming Cooperative Society Versus Ghulam Abbas Khan2011 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-10-06
  declaratory suitpower of attorneybona fide purchaserundue influenceforgeryland revenueburden of proofrendition of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a declaratory suit challenging the validity of a power of attorney and subsequent land sales executed by the deceased owner, Sikandar Khan. The plaintiff alleged that the power of attorney was obtained through fraud and undue influence, rendering the resulting sales invalid. Additionally, the plaintiff challenged two direct sales by the deceased, claiming the signatures were forged. The Supreme Court held that the power of attorney was validly executed, and the first two sales were protected as the purchaser was a bona fide buyer for valuable consideration. The Court clarified that an agent's failure to render accounts under Section 218 of the Contract Act 1872 does not invalidate the transaction itself. Conversely, the Court invalidated the third and fourth sales, finding that the beneficiaries failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the signatures on the revenue mutations were forged. The Court affirmed that the burden of proving the validity of a disputed transaction rests upon the beneficiary, especially when the vendor's signature is contested and no evidence of consideration exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agent's failure to render accounts to a principal under Section 218 of the Contract Act 1872 invalidate the transaction itself?
  • Can a sale transaction be set aside against a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration solely on the ground of an agent's failure to account?
  • Is a vendor required to sign the mutation register under Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Does the burden of proving the genuineness of a sale transaction lie with the beneficiary when the vendor's signature is challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Bhutto Versus Collector of Customs2011 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-10-23
  disciplinary proceedingsservice lawrevisional powersnatural justicemisconductcivil servantbiasenquiry report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld a penalty of stoppage of promotion for five years imposed on the appellant, an Appraiser in the Customs Collectorate, for alleged misconduct and corruption. The core legal question was whether the 'Authority' could exercise revisional powers under Rule 6-A of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to impose a penalty after an inquiry officer had exonerated the appellant, and whether such an order required valid, reasoned justification. The Supreme Court held that while the Authority possesses revisional powers, these cannot be exercised arbitrarily or based on personal knowledge not disclosed to the accused. The Court ruled that the impugned order was illegal and perverse because it relied on an annulled ex parte inquiry report, failed to provide reasons as mandated by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and violated principles of natural justice by importing the Authority's personal knowledge without notice. The Court set aside the penalty, emphasizing that public powers must be exercised fairly, and disciplinary authorities cannot act as judge, prosecutor, and witness simultaneously.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority exercise revisional powers under Rule 6-A of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to impose a penalty without assigning valid reasons?
  • Is an authority permitted to rely on personal knowledge in disciplinary proceedings without disclosing it to the accused?
  • Does an order passed by a disciplinary authority without recording reasons violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Can an authority rely on the findings of an ex parte inquiry report that has been previously set aside by the authorized officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Versus Manager, PIA, Lahore2011 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-23Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division Versus Dr. M. Akbar Rajput2011 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-24Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi Versus Pakistan State Oil Karachi2011 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-21
  Customs dutyshow-cause noticelimitation periodmanifested quantityrecovered quantityshort-levyinadvertence and error
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals with leave of the Court arise from an order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the Special Customs Reference filed by the Collector of Customs. The core controversy involved a discrepancy between the manifested quantity of imported oil and the actual recovered quantity upon which customs duty was paid, leading to the issuance of show-cause notices under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court examined whether the matter attracted section 32(1) and (2) relating to false statements or collusion, or section 32(3) relating to inadvertence, error, or misconstruction. Holding that the case did not involve forgery or fraud but fell under section 32(3)—which mandates the issuance of a show-cause notice within six months—the Court found that the notices were severely time-barred by up to 44 months. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the Tribunal and the High Court, dismissed the appeals as meritless, and directed departmental action against the responsible customs functionaries for negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a show-cause notice for short-levy of customs duty resulting from inadvertence, error or misconstruction falls under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Whether the limitation period of six months for issuing a show-cause notice under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 is mandatory?
  • Whether a discrepancy between the manifested quantity and actually recovered quantity of imported goods involves a question of fact?
  • Can provisions of section 32(1) and (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 be invoked in the absence of fraud, forgery, false declarations, or collusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Air League of Piac Employees Versus Federation of Pakistan M/O. Labour and Manpower Division Islamabad2011 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-06-02
  sunset legislationindustrial relations18th Constitutional Amendmentrepeal of statutetemporary lawconstitutional interpretationlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan sought a declaration that the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 remained operative until 30th June 2011, protected by Article 270-AA of the Constitution following the 18th Amendment. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, which contained a 'sunset clause' in Section 87(3) providing for its repeal on 30th April 2010, survived the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 was a temporary statute that automatically expired on 30th April 2010 by its own force. The Court ruled that Article 270-AA, while protecting existing laws, did not override the specific expiration date set by the statute itself. Consequently, the Court determined that the previous Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, did not revive upon the expiry of the 2008 Act. The principle laid down is that a temporary 'sunset' law expires automatically upon its specified date, and such expiration is not prevented by general constitutional protection clauses, nor does it trigger the automatic revival of previously repealed legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a temporary 'sunset' law automatically expire on its specified date despite general constitutional protection clauses?
  • Does the repeal of a temporary statute automatically revive previously repealed legislation?
  • Is a statute providing for a change of forum considered procedural in nature and thus applicable retrospectively?
  • Did the 18th Constitutional Amendment extend the life of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Naeem Versus State2011 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-17
  post-arrest bailrash and negligent drivingqatl-bis-sababqatl-e-amdrule of consistencycar race accidentfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under sections 279, 109, 322, 337-G, 302, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the deaths of five persons and injuring several others while driving a racecar at high speed during an arranged car race. The petitioner argued that his case was identical to that of a co-accused who was granted bail, and that the offence fell under section 322 for qatl-bis-sabab, punishable only by Diyat, thereby entitling him to bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's role as the driver who actually performed the fatal spinning of the vehicle distinguished him from the co-accused who merely acted as a referee, negating the application of the rule of consistency. The Court further ruled that extreme rash and negligent driving resulting in multiple deaths in such circumstances does not automatically warrant bail, and the applicability of section 302 versus section 322 is a moot point for the trial court to determine at the framing of the charge. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal declined.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in a fatal accident caused by extreme rash and negligent driving during a car race is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused under the rule of consistency apply where the roles and overt acts of the accused persons are distinctly different?
  • Is the determination of whether an offence falls under section 302 or section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be settled at the bail stage or by the trial court?
  • Whether the absence of a sentence of imprisonment under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 makes the grant of bail automatic in every case of rash and negligent driving?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. S.M. Inkisar Ali Versus Government of Sindh2011 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yahya Khan Versus Higher Education Commission through Chairman2011 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-06
  leave to appealwrit jurisdictionstatutory rulespromotionefficiency indexaffairs of the Federationpublic power
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had declined to issue a writ of mandamus to redress the petitioner's grievance regarding his non-promotion to BPS-20 by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The HEC Selection Board had superseded the petitioner for failing to meet the required efficiency index score. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution was maintainable against the HEC and whether the petitioner was governed by statutory rules. The Court analyzed Section 10 of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, and applied the judicial test to determine if the HEC performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Finding that the HEC exercises public power in education and has rules framed under statutory authority, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the 'Higher Education Commission Employees (Recruitment) Rules, 2009' constitute statutory rules and whether the petitioner can seek constitutional protection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Higher Education Commission performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • What are the essential tests to determine if an organization is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province?
  • Are the Higher Education Commission Employees (Recruitment) Rules, 2009 statutory in nature so as to enable an employee to maintain a writ petition for service grievances?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Versus Ghulam Shabbir Jiskani2011 SCMR 1198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-05-12
  CSS examinationcompetitive examination rulesprovincial quotaconstitutional interpretationmerit-based appointmentmandatory noticeultra viresfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that declared Rule 11(i) of the Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2008, ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, on the grounds that the 50% aggregate marks requirement discriminated against candidates from rural areas of Sindh. The core legal question was whether this rule violated the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 25, 27(1), and 37(a). The Supreme Court held that the rule is not discriminatory, as evidence showed that vacancies remained unfilled in both rural and urban areas due to the failure of candidates to meet the qualifying standards, rather than systemic bias. The Court further noted that the High Court failed to issue mandatory notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan under Order XXVII-A, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which vitiated the judgment. The Court established that merit-based criteria, when applied uniformly, do not violate constitutional protections for specific regions, and that the failure of candidates to meet prescribed standards is a matter of individual competence rather than constitutional infringement.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 50% aggregate marks requirement in the CSS Rules 2008 discriminatory against candidates from rural areas of Sindh?
  • Does the failure to issue notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan under Order XXVII-A, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, vitiate a judgment involving constitutional interpretation?
  • Can a rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks for competitive examinations be challenged as violative of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed Versus State2011 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-03-22
  criminal appealmurderpost-mortem delaychance witnessesbenefit of doubtacquittalmedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was affirmed by the High Court. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed the deceased using a hatchet and a knife, witnessed by related eye-witnesses. The legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given inconsistencies in the eye-witness statements, medical evidence, and handling of physical evidence.

  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses were related chance witnesses who did not intervene, and their timeline contradicted medical evidence showing the death occurred later than alleged. Delayed post-mortem examination suggested police time was used to plant witnesses. Furthermore, discrepancies regarding the hatchet stuck in the victim's head and unproven motive undermined the prosecution case. The principle affirmed is that material contradictions and unproven motives entitle an accused to acquittal based on benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in conducting a post-mortem examination raises a reasonable doubt that eye-witnesses were procured or planted by police?
  • Whether testimony of related chance witnesses can sustain a conviction when contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Whether the prosecution's failure to establish an alleged motive entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Versus State2011 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-10-22
  self-defencemurderreduction of sentencedeath penaltylife imprisonmentsuppression of origin of occurrencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose out of a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant admitted to killing the deceased but pleaded self-defence, claiming the deceased had committed house-trespass. The core legal question was whether the appellant's uncorroborated plea of self-defence was sustainable, and whether the death sentence was warranted given that the prosecution suppressed the true immediate cause of the incident. The Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence supporting the plea of self-defence, justifying its rejection by the lower courts. However, the Court noted that a prior dispute between the parties had been settled through a compromise, making the alleged motive for revenge implausible, and the precise circumstances leading to the killing remained undisclosed by the prosecution. Consequently, the Supreme Court maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, granting benefit under Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of self-defence be accepted solely on the uncorroborated assertion of the accused?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to disclose the true immediate cause of an incident justifies commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State2011 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-17
  leave to appealmurderdeath sentencenight occurrenceidentificationcorroborative evidenceforensic reportcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court maintaining his conviction and death sentence for the murder of a forest guard during a night-time incident involving the theft of government trees. The core legal questions involved the credibility of identification in the headlights of a car during a night occurrence and whether the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment on the ground that the murder was not premeditated. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of independent witnesses, corroborated by the recovery of a .12-bore pistol and a positive forensic report, proved the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the headlights of a car provided sufficient light for identification, especially of a known person. The Court further held that no leniency in sentencing was warranted where the accused resorted to firing upon being detected while committing an offence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the headlights of a car are sufficient for the identification of an accused during a night-time occurrence?
  • Does a murder committed upon being detected while stealing government property warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the uncorroborated ocular testimony of independent witnesses sufficient to maintain a conviction in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab, Home Department Versus Hafiz Muhammad Saeed2011 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-25
  preventive detentionhabeas corpusReview Boardconstitutional jurisdictionlive issuewrit petitionliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Punjab and the Federation of Pakistan against a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a habeas corpus petition and ordered the release of the respondents, who had been detained under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The government argued that because a Review Board, a constitutional body under Article 10(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, had extended the detention, the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 199 to review the legality of that detention. The Supreme Court observed that the government failed to provide any current material justifying the respondents' continued detention and admitted that no complaints of objectionable activities had been received since the respondents' release. Consequently, the Court held that the issue of preventive detention was no longer a live issue. While acknowledging the legal force of the government's argument regarding the Review Board's authority, the Court declined to rule on it, dismissing the petitions as the underlying necessity for detention had ceased to exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the extension of preventive detention by a Review Board under Article 10(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Can a court decline to adjudicate a legal question regarding preventive detention if the underlying necessity for such detention has ceased to exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan' Television Corp. Ltd. Versus Capital Development Authority2011 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-07
  property taxtax exemptionCapital Development Authoritypublic limited companyconstitutional immunitystate-owned corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against property tax demand notices issued by the Capital Development Authority. The appellant, Pakistan Television Corporation Limited, argued it was exempt from property tax as a government-owned company under paragraph 4(6) of SRO 24(I)/2001 and Article 165 of the Constitution. The core legal questions centered on whether a public limited company wholly or largely controlled by the Federal Government qualifies for governmental tax exemption regarding its immovable properties, and whether the Capital Development Authority had the jurisdiction to levy the tax. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, being a juristic person incorporated as a public limited company holding assets in its own name, does not fall within the exemption for government-owned properties and is expressly excluded as a public/private corporation under the applicable notification. The Court affirmed that such corporate entities are distinct from government departments and are liable to pay property tax, dismissing the appeal accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public limited company controlled by the Federal Government is exempt from the payment of property tax under paragraph 4(6) of SRO 24(I)/2001?
  • Do the immovable properties of a state-owned corporation vest in the Federal Government for the purposes of tax immunity under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Capital Development Authority possess the statutory competence to levy property tax on buildings and lands owned by public corporations within its territorial limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Afridi Versus Principal Secretary to the President Secretariat2011 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-06
  limitation periodService Tribunaldepartmental representationplea bargaindismissal from servicecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a former Executive Director in the FATA Development Corporation, was proceeded against under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, entered into a plea bargain, and was subsequently dismissed from service following departmental proceedings. His departmental representation to the President of Pakistan remained undecided for several years, leading him to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal shortly after receiving the decision, which the Tribunal dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, remains open-ended pending a decision on a departmental representation or is governed by the specific cut-off period prescribed in the proviso to Section 10. The Supreme Court held that under the special framework of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, an aggrieved civil servant must file an appeal within the prescribed timeframe—specifically within thirty days of the expiry of sixty days from the submission of the representation—failing which the appeal becomes time-barred. The key principle laid down is that limitation periods stipulated under special statutes like the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, cannot be construed as open-ended by awaiting delayed departmental responses beyond the statutory cut-off period.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, when a departmental representation remains undecided?
  • Does the limitation period for a civil servant's appeal under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, remain open-ended until the final decision on a representation is communicated?
  • How does the limitation computation under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 differ from that under Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator Zila Council, Sahiwal Versus Arif Hussain2011 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-02-17
  back benefitsreinstatementburden of proofemployment terminationcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition by the Administrator Zila Council, Sahiwal impugns the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision and upholding the grant of back benefits to the respondent-plaintiff following his reinstatement. The core legal question was whether a reinstated employee is entitled to back benefits in the absence of a specific assertion in the pleadings that they remained unemployed during the period of termination. The Supreme Court held that back benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement, and a foundational oral or written assertion by the employee of being unemployed during the relevant period is a strict prerequisite to shift the burden of proof onto the employer. The Court laid down the principle that mere inclusion of a cursory prayer for back benefits without a foundational averment in the pleadings regarding unemployment disentitles the employee from receiving back benefits, thereby modifying the High Court's judgment and partially allowing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether back benefits automatically follow an order of reinstatement?
  • Is a specific assertion of unemployment required in the plaint for an employee to claim back benefits?
  • On whom does the onus lie to prove gainful employment during the period of termination once unemployment is asserted?
  Read full judgment →
• 2010 SCMR 8852010 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-10-20Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Muhammad Hussain2010 SCMR 822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Versus State2010 SCMR 806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-15
  dishonoured chequedishonest intentionburden of proofcriminal liabilitySection 489-F PPCbank account insufficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly issuing a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured. The appellant contended that his cheque book had been stolen and the complainant had filled in the cheque, a claim he attempted to support via bank records. The Supreme Court examined the ingredients of Section 489-F, noting that the prosecution must prove the issuance of a cheque, dishonest intention, the purpose (repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation), and dishonour upon presentation. The Court held that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to establish that arrangements were made with the bank to ensure honouring and that the bank was at fault. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found the appellant's defense inconsistent, noting that his initial application to the bank to stop payment did not mention a theft, and the account balance was insufficient to cover the cheque. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused be absolved of liability for a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to establish that they had made arrangements with the bank to honour a cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed Versus Federation of Pakistan Nemo , Nemo2010 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-02-13
  judicial appointmentconsultation with Chief Justice of Pakistansuspension of notificationActing Chief JusticeSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon urgent evening proceedings regarding notifications issued by the Government of Pakistan concerning the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif as a Judge of the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the appointment notifications were issued in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan under Article 177 of the Constitution. The Court held that, prima facie, no consultation had taken place with the Chief Justice of Pakistan as required by the Constitution, rendering the appointment notification violative of constitutional provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended both notifications, ordered that the judges maintain their status quo ante by continuing their respective duties as Chief Justice and Judge of the Lahore High Court, restrained any steps for administering oaths pursuant to the impugned notifications, and directed the concerned Ministry official and Registrar to appear before the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court requires mandatory consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan under Article 177 of the Constitution?
  • Can a notification for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court be acted upon if the substantive office does not fall vacant?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can suspend a notification for judicial appointment issued in violation of constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Versus Arif Ashraf Khan2010 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-11-19
  sublettingejectmentlandlord and tenantdocumentary evidencecontradictory pleadingsconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding concurrent ejectment orders passed against the appellant-tenant on the ground of unlawful subletting of a shop. The core legal question was whether sufficient and consistent evidence existed on record to prove the alleged subletting, particularly in view of material contradictions between the landlord's pleadings, oral testimony, and contemporaneous documentary evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court, Additional District Judge, and the Rent Controller, holding that the landlord failed to establish the charge of subletting due to irreconcilable contradictions regarding the identity of the alleged sub-tenant between the legal notice and the ejectment application. The key principle laid down is that documentary evidence produced by a party, such as a legal notice, binds that party, and oral testimony cannot be preferred over contradictory documentary evidence to sustain a finding of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral evidence can be given preference over contradictory documentary evidence produced by the same party?
  • Does a contradiction between a legal notice and an ejectment application regarding the identity of an alleged sub-tenant vitiate the ejectment proceedings?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums can be interfered with when they ignore vital documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Versus Allah Ditta2010 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-02Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.10 of 2005, decided Versus2010 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Hamid Versus Kh. Abdul Rehman2010 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-09
  specific performancediscretionary reliefcontractual mutualitytime is of the essencemala fide conductNOCSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that decreed specific performance of a contract for the sale of a bungalow. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to enforce a contract where the agreement was signed only by the vendor, the vendees acted with mala fide intent, and the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the GHQ had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting the decree. The Court ruled that specific performance is a discretionary remedy under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which should not be exercised where the agreement lacks mutuality, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage, or where the plaintiff engages in forgery and misrepresentation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that time is of the essence when a contract explicitly stipulates consequences for non-performance. Given the vendees' failure to perform their obligations, their mala fide conduct regarding payment, and the impossibility of performance due to the withdrawal of the NOC, the appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court bound to grant specific performance merely because a contract is lawful?
  • Does a contract signed only by the vendor lack the mutuality required for specific performance?
  • When does time become of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property?
  • Can specific performance be granted when the essential prerequisite, such as an NOC, has been withdrawn?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Dr. Zahoor Alam2010 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-07-22
  specific performanceagreement to selltime is not essence of contractimmovable propertydiscretionary reliefpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immovable agricultural land executed on June 15, 1986. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suits, holding that time was the essence of the contract and noting the plaintiff's non-appearance in the witness box. The High Court reversed the trial court's judgment and decreed the suits, finding that time was not of the essence in contracts for immovable property and that the non-appearance of the plaintiff was not fatal since his special attorney had testified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that time is not generally the essence of the contract in agreements relating to immovable property unless specifically proven otherwise, and that discretionary relief of specific performance was rightly granted by the High Court upon sound judicial principles, subject to an enhanced payment of consideration to balance equities due to passage of time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is of the essence of the contract in agreements for the sale of immovable property?
  • Can a plaintiff's suit for specific performance be decreed when the plaintiff fails to appear in the witness box but is represented by a special attorney?
  • Does a first appellate court have the right to reverse the findings of a trial court under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after meeting its reasoning?
  • Is the grant of a decree for specific performance a discretionary relief to be exercised on sound judicial principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh (decd) Versus Ibrahim2010 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Altaf Versus State2010 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-07-23
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementpolice challanvicarious liabilitytentative assessmentmurderjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a post-arrest bail application in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the FIR, which initially misidentified the accused, and a subsequent supplementary statement implicating him, alongside a police report (challan) that declared him innocent. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, emphasizing that the police's opinion in the challan is not binding on the court and that the court must independently evaluate all material on record. The Court affirmed that bail decisions in serious offences require consideration of factors such as the identity of the accused, the specific role attributed, and the presence of incriminating material. The Court further held that while observations made during bail proceedings are tentative and not binding on the trial court, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for relief, especially given the ongoing trial and the petitioner's lack of cooperation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of the police in a challan report binding on the court when deciding a bail application?
  • What factors must a court consider when deciding bail applications in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment?
  • Are observations made by superior courts during bail proceedings binding on the trial court during the final adjudication of the case?
  • Can a court grant bail when the petitioner's name was inserted into the case through a supplementary statement rather than the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Masood Versus Federation of Pakistan2010 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-08-13
  freedom of speechright to informationcable operatorsPEMRAsuspension of transmissionfundamental rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, alleging that licensed cable operators illegally closed and suspended the transmission of news channels ARY and GEO in collusion with authorities and for personal or extra-legal motives. The core legal questions involved whether cable operators could lawfully suspend broadcasting services without prior approval or force majeure, and whether the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and its Chairman failed in their statutory and moral duties to protect freedom of speech and the public's right to information. The Court held, prima facie, that the unannounced blockade of the channels by cable operators without reporting any genuine law and order incidents constituted a gross violation of PEMRA licences and relevant statutory provisions, and that the inaction of PEMRA's Chairman suggested possible abetment. The Court laid down that cable operators have a strict legal, constitutional, and moral obligation to maintain uninterrupted distribution services, that suspension is impermissible except for force majeure or prior written approval of the Authority under Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002, and that fundamental rights to freedom of speech, press, and access to information under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution must be robustly safeguarded by regulatory bodies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensed T.V. cable operator lawfully cease or suspend the distribution of broadcast channels without prior approval of PEMRA or the existence of force majeure?
  • Whether the unannounced blocking of television news channels by cable operators violates the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and access to information under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does failure by the Chairman of PEMRA to take action against delinquent cable operators who suspend transmissions attract penal consequences for abetment under the PEMRA Ordinance 2002?
  • Is an order in writing with recorded reasons from the Authority mandatory under Section 27 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 before any broadcast can be prohibited?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Abbas Taqi Mehdi Versus Mst. Sayeda Sabahat Batool2010 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-11-03Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Hussain Kayani Versus Zafar Iqbal Kiyani2010 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-14
  quashment of FIRstay of criminal proceedingscivil and criminal liabilityforgerytitle disputepending civil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that quashed an FIR registered for alleged forgery of vehicle transfer documents. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be quashed or stayed when a civil suit involving the same subject matter—specifically the title and inheritance rights of the disputed vehicle—is pending adjudication. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR entirely. The Court ruled that while civil and criminal liabilities are independent, criminal proceedings should be stayed rather than quashed when the criminal liability is inextricably linked to the outcome of civil litigation, particularly regarding property title. This approach prevents the risk of conflicting decisions and potential grave injustice. The principle laid down is that where the validity of a document or title is the subject of a pending civil suit, the criminal court should stay its hands until the civil court resolves the dispute, rather than prematurely terminating the criminal investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Should criminal proceedings be quashed or stayed when the underlying criminal liability depends on the outcome of a pending civil suit?
  • Does a criminal court have the discretion to stay criminal proceedings pending the final decree in a related civil suit?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to quash an FIR when the title to the property in dispute is currently being adjudicated in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ayesha Sabir Versus Fida Ul Haq2010 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-08-18
  dowry recoveryconcurrent findings of factleave to appealres judicataforeign judgmentconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for the recovery of dowry articles filed by the petitioner against her former spouse. The petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the Family Court, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court, all of which concluded that the petitioner's claims had been settled by a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice in Canada. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with these concurrent factual findings and the exclusion of a specific document regarding the settlement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it generally does not interfere with concurrent conclusions of fact reached by lower courts when exercising jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the trial court's decision to exclude the disputed document in the first appellate court or the High Court, thereby precluding her from agitating the issue before the Supreme Court. The principle of discretionary relief in constitutional jurisdiction was also affirmed, requiring clean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Can a party challenge the admissibility of a document in the Supreme Court if they failed to challenge its exclusion in the lower appellate courts?
  • Is the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the Supreme Court discretionary in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin Versus State2010 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-04
  Qatl-e-amdocular evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnessmotiveforensic delaycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction for Qatl-e-amd. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful due to alleged conflicts between ocular and medical evidence, the status of eye-witnesses as 'interested' due to their relationship with the deceased, and the impact of delays in sending forensic evidence to the Chemical Examiner. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court found no conflict between the ocular and medical evidence, noting that the medical testimony regarding the time of death corroborated the eye-witness accounts. It further held that mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' and that the ocular evidence remained consistent and reliable. The Court reaffirmed that a failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution's case and that delays in forensic analysis do not automatically invalidate otherwise credible ocular evidence. Consequently, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the lower court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending crime weapons and empties to the Chemical Examiner automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to prove motive fatal to a prosecution case in a murder trial?
  • Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render them 'interested' witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a discrepancy between the time of injury and the time of treatment as stated by a medical officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Versus State2010 SCMR 1720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-14
  Qatl-e-Amddeath sentencegrave and sudden provocationself-defensequantum of sentenceburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant admitted to the occurrence but contended that he acted in self-defense and under grave and sudden provocation after witnessing his wife being mistreated by the deceased and others. The core legal question was whether this defense plea warranted a reduction in the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate his defense, noting that he did not produce his wife as a witness nor did he testify under oath as permitted by law. The Court observed that the plea was a belated afterthought unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution's evidence established that the appellant arrived at the scene armed and acted with predetermination, demonstrating a brutal manner of commission. Consequently, the Court found no mitigating circumstances to justify a reduction in the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that a special defense plea requires cogent evidence, and the absence thereof, coupled with established premeditation, precludes leniency in sentencing for Qatl-e-Amd.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person bear the burden of proving a special defense plea such as grave and sudden provocation?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a death sentence based on a defense plea that was not substantiated by evidence during the trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to a reduction in sentence for murder if they fail to testify under oath to support their claim of self-defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Versus State2010 SCMR 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-28
  murderattempted murderocular evidenceinjured witnesspost-mortem delaycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Shazia and the attempted murder of Mst. Bushra. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the ocular evidence, the impact of an alleged delay in the post-mortem examination, and whether the prosecution's case was undermined by inconsistencies regarding the time of the FIR and the crime scene location. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular testimony of the injured witness and other prosecution witnesses was consistent, natural, and corroborated by forensic evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and matching ballistics. The Court affirmed that administrative delays in conducting a post-mortem do not inherently create doubt when the ocular evidence is strong and credible. The principle laid down is that minor discrepancies or administrative delays in post-mortem procedures do not invalidate a conviction when the guilt of the accused is conclusively established by consistent ocular testimony and corroborative forensic reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does an administrative delay in conducting a post-mortem examination automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be considered sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case?
  • Does the failure to prove the exact timing of a complainant's work shift create reasonable doubt regarding their presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Versus Land Acquisition Collector Highways Department2010 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-06-22Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Versus Mst. Shaheen Kousar2010 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Libas Khan Versus Mst. Naseem Akhtar2010 SCMR 1362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-04Read full judgment →