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.

• Muhammad Shahban and others Versus Falak Sher2007 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-28Read full judgment →
• Hakim-Ud-Din through L.Rs. and others Versus Faiz Bakhsh2007 SCMR 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and others Versus Mst. Zubeda Begum2007 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Versus Muhammad Iqbal2007 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus E.D.O. (Education)2007 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-08
  back-benefitsreinstatementservice appealgainful employmentPunjab Service Tribunalcompulsory retirementburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal denying back-benefits to the petitioners upon their reinstatement in service as PTC Teachers following fresh inquiry proceedings where the charges against them were not proved. The core legal question is whether an illegally removed employee, upon exoneration and reinstatement, is entitled to back-benefits as a general rule unless proven gainfully employed. The Supreme Court held that the grant of service back-benefits to an employee illegally kept away from employment is the rule, while denial is an exception applicable only upon proof of gainful employment during the interregnum. The Court laid down that the burden lies to prove gainful employment, that evasive denials of assertions in pleadings do not constitute valid rebuttal, and that the Service Tribunal must exercise judicial application of mind when adjudicating service appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who is exonerated and reinstated in service is entitled to back-benefits as a rule?
  • Does the denial of back-benefits require proof that the reinstated employee remained gainfully employed during the relevant period?
  • Can an evasive reply to an averment made in an appeal before the Service Tribunal be considered a valid denial in law?
  • What are the consequences when the Service Tribunal fails to apply its judicial mind to the pleadings of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bukhsh and another Versus Muhammad Ramzan2007 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-29Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad Kalhoro and others Versus State2007 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-31
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationanti-corruptionprohibitory clausepresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the legality of cancelling pre-arrest bail without considering the incriminating material on record or providing cogent reasons, and whether bail can be refused by way of punishment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail without referring to any specific incriminating evidence and noted that bail cannot be refused as a form of punishment or where the case falls outside the prohibitory clause and involves documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution. The key principle laid down is that the initial presumption of innocence must be maintained, liberty cannot be curtailed without accordance with law, and bail should not be refused for the purpose of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled by the High Court without citing specific incriminating evidence or providing cogent reasons?
  • Does the refusal of bail amount to punishment when an accused is entitled to its grant?
  • Can bail be refused in cases where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Khan Versus Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami2007 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-06Read full judgment →
• Gul Kanjeer Khan and others Versus Subedar Umer Khatab2007 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-21Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan Versus Mst. Nighat Iram Alam2007 SCMR 794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-05Read full judgment →
• Binyamin alias Khari and others Versus State2007 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-29
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencecapital punishmentconcurrent findingsappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether a conviction for a capital offense can be sustained primarily on the basis of circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last-seen' evidence and departure evidence, when direct eyewitness testimony is absent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that while last-seen evidence is generally considered a weak form of proof, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction, including capital punishment, provided it forms an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the appellate court, based on a proper appreciation of evidence—including the recovery of the dead body and corroborating medical evidence—are not typically subject to interference. The key principle laid down is that circumstantial evidence, when logical, reasonable, and forming a complete chain, is a legally recognized and sufficient mode to establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is 'last-seen' evidence sufficient to connect an accused to a crime if corroborated by other circumstances?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh and 2 others Versus Wahid Bakhsh2007 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-21
  specific performancetemporary injunctionmultiplicity of proceedingsinterlocutory orderrevenue proceedingscivil procedureappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court confirming an interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The appellants challenged the injunction, arguing that the High Court lacked the authority to stay proceedings on the revenue side, citing Section 56(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant an injunction to stay proceedings of a court or authority not subordinate to it. The Supreme Court observed that the litigation over the interlocutory matter had persisted for over six years, causing unnecessary delay. The Court held that the High Court acted justifiably in granting the injunction to avoid further complications and the multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, declining to interfere with the High Court's discretion, and directed that the main Regular First Appeal be decided by the competent court within three months. The judgment emphasizes the court's inherent power to manage proceedings to prevent procedural abuse and multiplicity of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court grant an injunction to stay proceedings of a court or authority not subordinate to it?
  • Is the grant of a temporary injunction justified to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court when the main appeal remains pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Versus State2007 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-25
  criminal petition for leave to appealmurderocular accountnatural witnessmedical evidenceconcurrent findingscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner and upheld his conviction and sentence of death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the sufficiency of identification in a late-night domestic occurrence, and the plausibility of the defence plea regarding nocturnal homicide. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on the testimonies of natural and reliable eyewitnesses whose presence at the scene was established, and that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution timeline without material contradictions. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the testimony of a natural witness in a domestic murder, when unimpeached and supported by prompt reporting and medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a natural eyewitness in a domestic murder case is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • Does a discrepancy in the medical post-mortem duration alone render the prosecution's time of occurrence doubtful?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding a criminal conviction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
  • Whether an accused can successfully raise a defence of alternative homicide without establishing the motive or presence of alleged third parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hussain Versus Ravi Ryan Limited through Managing Director2007 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-17
  grievance noticecondonation of delaylabour lawlimitation periodindustrial relationsgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the appellant's grievance petition by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to condone a delay in the issuance of a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, via Section 65-B of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the lower forums erred in denying this jurisdiction. The Court determined that the phrase 'any other thing is to be done' in Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is broad and unambiguous, extending the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to all acts required under the Ordinance, including the issuance of a grievance notice. Consequently, the Court established the principle that Labour Courts have the authority to condone delays in grievance notices upon sufficient cause being shown, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Labour Court have the jurisdiction to condone a delay in the issuance of a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, make the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applicable to acts required to be done prior to the filing of a grievance petition?
  • Is the phrase 'any other thing is to be done' in Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, applicable to the issuance of a grievance notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah Versus N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi2007 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-03-07
  civil reviewpremature retirementduress and coercionlimitationdepartmental appealservice tribunalvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition challenged a Supreme Court judgment that had previously set aside a Sindh Service Tribunal order regarding an employee's premature retirement. The petitioner, an employee of N.E.D. University, contended his retirement application was obtained under duress by the Vice-Chancellor. The core legal questions concerned the validity of retracting a retirement option and whether the issue of limitation regarding a departmental appeal could be raised if the departmental authority had not dismissed the appeal on that ground. The Supreme Court held that the retirement option was void ab initio due to duress and could be withdrawn before becoming effective. Furthermore, the Court ruled that if a departmental authority does not dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation, that objection cannot be subsequently raised before the Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that no inflexible rule mandates the finality of a retirement option, and findings of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding coercion, if based on cogent reasons, warrant no interference. The review petition was allowed, and the Service Tribunal's order was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant withdraw an application for premature retirement before it becomes effective?
  • Is an option for premature retirement obtained under duress void ab initio?
  • Can the objection of limitation regarding a departmental appeal be raised before the Service Tribunal if the departmental authority did not dismiss the appeal on that ground?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and others Versus Saleh Khan2007 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervez and others Versus State2007 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-28
  judicial confessionidentification paradedacoityocular evidencecriminal appealpolice tortureacquittalretracted confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for offences including dacoity and murder, originally sentenced by the trial court and upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and voluntariness of a judicial confession, the validity of an identification parade, and the reliability of ocular evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the judicial confession was involuntary, citing a significant delay in recording it and evidence of police torture. Furthermore, the Court determined that the identification parade was legally flawed because the prosecution witnesses had observed the accused prior to the parade. Additionally, the Court found that the ocular testimony suffered from material contradictions and was inconsistent with the medical evidence, rendering it unreliable. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a confession recorded after an unexplained delay, especially when coupled with allegations of torture, is inadmissible, and that identification proceedings are vitiated if witnesses have prior access to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of over 24 hours in recording a judicial confession, without explanation, render the confession involuntary?
  • Is an identification parade valid if the prosecution witnesses have seen the accused persons prior to the parade?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular evidence that contains material contradictions and is inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Does evidence of physical injuries on an accused, supported by medical examination, cast doubt on the voluntariness of a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman through L.Rs. Versus Haji Muhammad Yousaf through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Versus Khawaja Khalil-Ur-Rehman2007 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-04Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and another Versus Abdul Rashid Langove2007 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Versus Fayyaz Ahmed2007 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-07
  Zina-bil-JabrZina-bil-RazaAppellate jurisdictionSentence reductionReappraisal of evidenceHudood OrdinanceCriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a jail petition arising from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which modified a conviction for rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) to consensual intercourse (Zina-bil-Raza). The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court erred in law and fact by reducing the sentence and altering the conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, based on a reappraisal of evidence regarding the victim's consent and physical condition. The Supreme Court dismissed both the appeal and the petition, holding that the Federal Shariat Court correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction to reappraise evidence and modify the conviction. The Court found no illegality in the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish Zina-bil-Jabr beyond doubt, justifying the conversion to Zina-bil-Raza. The judgment affirms that appellate courts possess wide powers under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to alter convictions, provided the altered conviction is one that the trial court could have legally recorded, and that the Federal Shariat Court is empowered to examine questions of fact and law in such cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Shariat Court alter a conviction from Zina-bil-Jabr to Zina-bil-Raza upon reappraisal of evidence?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases arising under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • What are the limitations on the powers of an appellate court when altering a conviction under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Shazia Batool Versus Government of Balochistan2007 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-03
  Admission policyDistrict-wise quotaConstitutional petitionReasonable classificationFundamental rightsMedical educationMerit-based admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the admission policy of Bolan Medical College, Quetta, specifically the district-wise allocation of seats and the bifurcation of Quetta District into urban and rural categories. The appellant, a medical college applicant, contended that these quotas were discriminatory and violated Articles 2-A, 22, 25, and 37(c) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, arguing that admissions should be based solely on provincial merit. The core legal question was whether such district-wise quotas and classifications constituted reasonable classification or violated fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the admission policy was not unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that allocating seats based on districts and agencies, particularly to support students from backward and underdeveloped areas, constitutes a reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the objective of fostering genuine equality in education. Consequently, the Court affirmed that such policies do not violate constitutional guarantees of equality and dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to maintain the existing admission framework.

  Questions settled

  • Is the allocation of medical college seats based on district-wise quotas unconstitutional?
  • Can the government create reasonable classifications for admission to professional colleges to accommodate students from backward areas?
  • Does the bifurcation of a district into urban and rural areas for seat allocation violate the principle of equality?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Mengal Versus The State through A.-G. Sindh, Karachi2007 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-03-02
  post-arrest bailretracted judicial confessionfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencemurderbail stageappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner, who was charged with the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the retracted judicial confession of a co-accused and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the intrinsic value and credibility of a retracted judicial confession, along with the weight of circumstantial evidence, cannot be definitively assessed at the bail stage. The Court affirmed that a retracted judicial confession, if found truthful and confidence-inspiring, can be relied upon, and that a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage does not warrant a conclusion that the case is one of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that superior courts should not decide bail applications on merits when a trial is ongoing, as such an exercise may prejudice the trial proceedings. The petition was dismissed, with a directive to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be considered for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a case based on a retracted judicial confession and circumstantial evidence automatically a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should superior courts decide the merits of a case during bail proceedings when the trial is already in progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman and another Versus Sher Muhammad through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Versus Sheikh Fateh Muhammad2007 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Member, Board of Revenue2007 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam Bibi Versus Muhammad Ali through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emptioncompromise decreeexecution of decreeconstruction of documentintention of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored an executing court's order regarding a compromise decree in a pre-emption suit. The original pre-emption suit was dismissed by the first appellate court, but during the pendency of a regular second appeal, the parties entered into a compromise where the petitioners agreed to surrender one-third of the disputed land to the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents withdrew their deposited decretal amount and pre-emption money unconditionally and initiated execution proceedings without paying any proportionate consideration for the land surrendered. The core legal question concerned the proper construction of the ambiguous compromise deed and whether the respondents were entitled to receive the land without paying proportionate consideration. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that documents and compromises must be construed by examining the true intention of the parties and the equities of the case. The Court ruled that the petitioners could not be expected to surrender land without receiving proportionate consideration, and directed simultaneous payment of the price and handing over of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of proper construction of a document is a question of law or of fact?
  • Can a party claim land under a compromise decree without paying the proportionate consideration when the compromise deed is silent on the matter?
  • How should courts construe a compromise agreement or document containing omissions regarding consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Versus State2007 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-28
  jail petitionmurderdeath sentenceZina-bil-JabrOffence of ZinaFederal Shariat Courtcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had upheld the convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The prosecution case was that the petitioners abducted a woman and her grandmother, whereafter petitioner Muhammad Bashir murdered the grandmother upon her intervention, and petitioner Muhammad Latif committed forcible Zina with the woman. The trial court convicted Muhammad Bashir under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death, while Muhammad Latif was convicted under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The Federal Shariat Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Upon perusing the entire evidence with the assistance of defense counsel, the Supreme Court found no ground for interference with the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the jail petition and upheld the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentencing by the trial court and the Federal Shariat Court when supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Versus State2007 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-15
  murderdeath sentenceconcurrent findingspetty quarrelocular testimonyleave to appealcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Liaqat Ali, was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Zulfiqar and Ghulam Mustafa following a petty quarrel between children, and was sentenced to death on two counts. His conviction was upheld by both the trial court and the High Court. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court examined the record and found no legal or factual infirmity in the concurrent findings of guilt, noting that the eyewitnesses were natural witnesses with no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The court addressed the question of quantum of sentence, holding that the callous and reckless manner of the killings over a petty dispute warranted no leniency. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt recorded by lower courts in a murder case warrant interference when eyewitness testimony is reliable and natural?
  • Does a petty quarrel between children serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence for a double murder?
  • Are related eyewitnesses considered reliable when they are natural witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah Khan Versus State2007 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-30
  transfer of criminal caseadjournmentabsence of senior counselstate counselbias and partialitymurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for transfer of a criminal case arises from the conduct of the trial court in refusing an adjournment requested due to the absence of the petitioners' senior counsel and instead appointing a defence counsel at state expense in a murder trial. The core legal question is whether the refusal of adjournment and appointment of state counsel demonstrates bias or partiality warranting the transfer of the case. The Supreme Court held that while the trial court's actions reflected haste and anxiety for expeditious proceedings rather than actual bias or partiality, it is nevertheless advisable in murder trials to grant adjournments for the absence of senior counsel unless sought merely to protract proceedings, and accused persons generally prefer counsel of their choice. The petition was disposed of with observations that the trial court should avoid undue haste and urgency that might create doubts regarding its impartiality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of an adjournment by a trial court due to the absence of a senior counsel and the appointment of a defence counsel at state expense constitute sufficient ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Should adjournments be granted in criminal murder trials when the senior counsel is absent?
  • Is undue haste by a trial court in conducting proceedings indicative of bias and partiality?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz-Ud-Din Versus State2007 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-04
  narcotics possessioncustodial violencesentence reductionfirst-time offenderconcurrent findingscriminal appealheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of five kilograms of heroin. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable given the petitioner's claims of false implication, custodial violence, and lack of evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the prosecution witnesses, who had no enmity with the petitioner, provided consistent testimony regarding the recovery of narcotics. The court held that in the absence of any illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the conviction remained unexceptionable. However, regarding the sentence, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment from ten years to six years. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent testimony are generally upheld, the court may mitigate sentencing when the accused is a first-time offender and has been subjected to documented custodial violence during the investigation process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reduce a sentence for a narcotics conviction if the accused is a first-time offender and suffered custodial violence?
  • Does the absence of enmity between prosecution witnesses and the accused support the reliability of their testimony?
  • Is a concurrent finding of guilt by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Versus Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.2007 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-06Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs, Peshawar Versus Messrs Paper International (Pvt.) Ltd., Nowshera2007 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Versus State2007 SCMR 1896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-06-26
  sudden quarrelheat of passionunintentional murderpremeditationconviction alterationdiyatcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted intentional murder under section 302(b) or an unintentional murder resulting from a sudden quarrel without premeditation under section 302(c) or section 315 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the occurrence was a sudden affair arising in the heat of passion without premeditation or intention to murder, where the petitioner inflicted a single blow with an ordinary wooden stick. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the conviction under section 302(b), and convicted the appellant under section 302(c) read with section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with compensation. The key principle laid down is that where an unpremeditated fatal blow is dealt during a sudden quarrel without intention to kill, the offense falls under unintentional murder punishable under section 302(c) rather than intentional murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fatal blow inflicted during a sudden quarrel without premeditation constitutes intentional murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 302(c) when the element of premeditation is missing?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conversion of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and others Versus Asghar Hussain Shah2007 SCMR 1884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-06Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Exports) and another Versus Messrs R.A. Hosiery Works2007 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-14Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad through L.Rs. Versus Muhammad Yousuf2007 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-24Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. Versus Bahadur Sher2007 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-30
  leave to appealacquittalreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealsafe administration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the acquittal warrants interference through the reappraisal of evidence for the safe administration of justice. The Court held that for the safe administration of justice, a complete reappraisal of the entire evidence is necessary to determine if the respondents were correctly and lawfully acquitted. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the issuance of bailable warrants against the respondents, and ordered the appeal to be set down for hearing within the year, establishing the principle that leave to appeal may be granted to examine the correctness of an acquittal based on the reappraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether reappraisal of evidence is necessary to examine the correctness of an acquittal for the safe administration of justice?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the acquittal of respondents?
  • What are the consequential orders passed upon the grant of leave to appeal in a criminal acquittal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore and another Versus Muhammad Iqbal2007 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and others Versus Atta Muhammad2007 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-07
  inheritanceIslamic law of successioncustomary lawself-acquired propertymutationancestral propertyWajib-ul-Arzcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land left by one Pir Bakhsh who died in 1942. The sole son, Allah Wasaya, had obtained a mutation of inheritance in his favour alone, excluding the daughters. Decades later, the daughters' legal heirs filed a suit for declaration claiming their share under Islamic Shariat, which was initially dismissed by the lower courts on the ground that customary law applied. The High Court reversed this finding, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the disputed property was ancestral or self-acquired by the deceased, determining whether custom or Islamic law of inheritance applies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the property was self-acquired by the deceased rather than ancestral, and therefore customary law did not apply. The Court laid down the principle that self-acquired property is governed by the Islamic Law of Succession, and legal heirs cannot be deprived of their shares under Shariat on the basis of alleged customs inapplicable to non-ancestral property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether customary law applies to self-acquired property left by a deceased Muslim proprietor?
  • Does the Islamic Law of Succession immediately vest a deceased person's estate in their legal heirs upon death without state intervention?
  • Can legal heirs be deprived of their inheritance shares under Shariat where property is proven to be self-acquired rather than ancestral?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the applicability of custom can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction when based on non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Javed Hashmi Versus State2007 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-03
  suspension of sentencecriminal reviewpost-arrest bailquantum of sentence undergonesanction for cognizancesedition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a criminal petition seeking the suspension of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, who was convicted under sections 124-A, 468, 469, 471, 500, 505(a), and 131/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the sentence of a convict who has already undergone a major portion of his imprisonment, where his appeal has remained pending without hearing for years and statutory sanction requirements for cognizance appear unfulfilled, is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was made out, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it by setting aside the High Court's order declining suspension of sentence. The Court laid down the principle that where a convict has served a substantial portion of the sentence, the appeal remains unheard for an extended period, and arguable points regarding sanction under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exist, the sentence may be suspended in the interest of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when the convict has already undergone a major portion of the imprisonment?
  • Whether the lack of government sanction under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offense under section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provides a tentative ground for suspending a sentence?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal without a hearing for a prolonged period justify the suspension of a convict's sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi Versus Muhammad Younas2007 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-27
  fraudulent appointmentmisrepresentationservice appealtermination of servicelocus poenitentiaeconcealment of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 13-4-2005, which had set aside the termination of the respondent's services. The respondent, a former Pakistan Army employee dismissed for misconduct and rendered unfit for civil service, had secured a teaching appointment in 1985 by concealing these facts and using a forged discharge certificate. After initiating disciplinary proceedings and terminating his services in 2001, the department faced multiple rounds of litigation. The Supreme Court examined the chronological facts, noting that the respondent's removal order from 2001 remained unchallenged before any competent forum despite being brought on record in earlier proceedings. The core legal question was whether an appointment secured through fraud and misrepresentation could be protected and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applied. The Supreme Court held that appointments secured through fraud and misrepresentation vitiate the process ab initio, making the principle of locus poenitentiae inapplicable. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, while exempting the respondent from returning salary for the period he actually worked.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment secured through fraud and misrepresentation is protected by the principle of locus poenitentiae?
  • Does the failure to challenge a termination order in subsequent service appeals render it final?
  • Can an employee retain salary for the period duties were performed despite the appointment being declared void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid and others Versus Umar Bakhsh through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-07-12Read full judgment →
• Directorate-General Civil Defence, Government of Pakistan, Interior Division, Islamabad Versus Mian Abdul Salam2007 SCMR 1779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-07-16
  leave to appealcivil servant retirementservice tribunalreinstatementpetition maintainabilitycompetent authorityappointing authorityextraordinary leaveservice recordGovernment as party
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Directorate-General Civil Defence against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated Mian Abdul Salam, a Deputy Director, into service. The respondent had been retired under Section 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, on grounds of having outlived his utility. The Tribunal had reinstated him, holding that his extraordinary leave, if deducted, resulted in less than 25 years of service, and his record was not unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court, while expressing disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the merits of the retirement, ultimately dismissed the petition. The core legal question settled was the maintainability of the petition. The Court held that the petition was non-maintainable because it was filed by the Director-General Civil Defence, who was neither the Government nor the appointing authority, instead of the Secretary Interior Division, who was the competent authority and the Government for such purposes under the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against a service tribunal's order be filed by an entity that is neither the Government nor the appointing authority of the civil servant?
  • Who is considered 'the Government' for the purpose of filing a petition, plaint, or appeal in matters concerning civil servants?
  • Is it mandatory to array the competent authority/Government as a party in a petition challenging a service tribunal's order, even if they were respondents before the Tribunal?
  • Does the completion of 25 years of service for retirement under Section 13(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, include periods of extraordinary leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin Versus Secretary, Government of Punjab2007 SCMR 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-24
  service tribunalpro forma promotionsupersessiondepartmental promotion committeepending appealmajor penaltypublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer who was later promoted, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had partly allowed his appeal regarding his regular promotion date and supersession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was rightly superseded while his departmental appeal against a major penalty was pending, and from which date he was entitled to pro forma promotion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that superseding the petitioner while his appeal was pending, without deferring his case, was without lawful authority and that no person should be penalized by the inaction or improper actions of public functionaries. The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the Service Tribunal's judgment to direct that the petitioner's case for pro forma promotion be considered from the date of the penalty order rather than the date the Tribunal decided his appeal. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries must act fairly and defer a civil servant's promotion case when an appeal against a penalty is pending adjudication, ensuring employees are not prejudiced by departmental delays.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can be superseded while an appeal against a major penalty is pending adjudication before a service tribunal?
  • Should public functionaries defer the promotion case of an employee awaiting the outcome of a pending departmental or tribunal appeal?
  • Can an employee be penalized by the inaction or improper consideration of public functionaries?
  • From which date is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion when their supersession is found to be contrary to law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar Versus Additional District Judge, Chiniot, District Jhang2007 SCMR 1768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus Muhammad Siddique2007 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Wajid Saeed Khan Versus Abdul Qadoos Khan Swati2007 SCMR 1759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-10
  banking companyauction saleincentive schemeobjection petitionremand orderjudicial application of mindexecution proceedingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of a banking recovery suit where the judgment-debtor's property was auctioned during execution proceedings following a dispute over the fulfillment of a State Bank of Pakistan incentive scheme. The executing court dismissed the judgment-debtor's objection petition without conducting a proper investigation or judicial application of mind. On appeal, the Peshawar High Court set aside the executing court's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The auction purchaser challenged the remand order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the perfunctory order of the executing court and remanding the case for proper investigation, reaffirming the settled principle that the Supreme Court generally does not interfere with remand orders, and that judicial officers and public functionaries must decide matters only after a proper judicial application of mind. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court interferes with remand orders passed by the High Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
  • Is a judicial officer bound to decide objections and applications after a proper judicial application of mind?
  • What is the extent of the State Bank of Pakistan's power to control advances by banking companies under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and another Versus State2007 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-16
  criminal appealleave to appealeye-witness testimonyblood enmitycorroborationforensic evidenceinvestigative procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction involving two petitioners, Habibullah and Umar Hayat, who were convicted for murder. The core legal issue concerns the reliability of eye-witness testimony in the presence of admitted blood enmity and the evidentiary value of forensic evidence, specifically crime empties recovered from the crime scene. The Supreme Court observed that because of the admitted enmity between the parties, the testimony of eye-witnesses required independent corroboration. The Court scrutinized the recovery of five crime empties, noting that the Investigating Officer admitted to receiving official directives (Robkars) from a D.S.P. to procure crime empties days after the occurrence, casting significant doubt on the timing and authenticity of the recovery. Consequently, the Court held that the forensic evidence could not serve as reliable corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case doubtful, the Court allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in cases of admitted enmity, eye-witness testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence, and evidence obtained through suspicious investigative procedures lacks credibility.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witness testimony be relied upon without corroboration in cases of admitted blood enmity?
  • Does the timing of the recovery of crime empties, when inconsistent with police records, render forensic evidence unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of crime empties when the investigating officer admits to receiving instructions to procure them after the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Siddique Versus Dr. Riffat Aysha Anis2007 SCMR 1748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and another Versus Mst. Farida Bibi2007 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Versus Shamsher2007 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-06-05
  inheritance disputeIslamic law of successionuterine siblingsresiduary heirsmisappreciation of evidencepedigree-table
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding an inheritance dispute over the property of the deceased, Haji Ahmad. The core legal question concerned the correct distribution of the deceased's estate among his heirs, specifically whether the uterine relationship of certain collaterals granted them a preferential share in the residue of the estate. The Supreme Court examined the pedigree-table and the rules of succession under Islamic law. The Court held that because the mother of the deceased had married his uncle, the children of that union were uterine siblings to the deceased, placing them in a nearer degree of relationship compared to other collaterals. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the residue of the estate must pass to these uterine siblings. The judgment emphasizes that ignoring established facts regarding familial relationships constitutes a serious misappreciation of both fact and law, necessitating appellate intervention to correct the distribution of inheritance shares.

  Questions settled

  • Does a uterine relationship with the deceased create a preferential claim to the residue of an estate compared to other collaterals?
  • Is the failure of lower courts to consider established familial relationships in an inheritance dispute considered a misappreciation of law and fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus The Statr2007 SCMR 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-22
  narcotics controlsearch and seizurepublic placesearch warrantdirectory provisionscriminal appealpossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal against a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 13 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the raid conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.-I.) in a public street violated Section 21 of the Act, which restricts search and seizure powers to officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector regarding buildings or premises. The Supreme Court held that Section 21 is inapplicable to searches conducted in public places or thoroughfares, as its provisions specifically govern the entry and search of buildings, places, or premises. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the requirement for search warrants is directory rather than mandatory, particularly when immediate action is necessary to prevent the concealment of evidence or the escape of the accused. Consequently, the Court found no procedural illegality in the raid, upheld the conviction, and dismissed the petition, noting that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimony and positive chemical examination reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 apply to searches conducted in public streets or thoroughfares?
  • Is the requirement to obtain a search warrant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 mandatory or directory?
  • Can an Assistant Sub-Inspector conduct a search and seizure of narcotics in a public place without a warrant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Versus Shamsul Aulia2007 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-27
  back-benefitsbank cashierdismissal from serviceindustrial relationsmisconductreinstatementwilful negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arises out of a labor dispute where the respondent, a bank cashier, was dismissed for misconduct regarding irregular payments on cheques, but later reinstated by the labor courts. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the employee's misconduct and reinstatement warranted interference by the Supreme Court, particularly in light of established negligence. The Supreme Court held that while the reinstatement of the employee and the findings on facts did not require interference, the established charge of wilful negligence justified the imposition of a minor penalty. The court laid down the principle that where gross negligence or lack of vigilance is proved against an employee in financial institutions, the appellate forums can suitably modify the penalty to meet the ends of justice rather than leaving the proved misconduct entirely unpunished.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by labor courts in a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does gross negligence by a bank employee in verifying cheques constitute misconduct justifying a penalty?
  • Can the Supreme Court modify a service penalty by imposing a minor penalty instead of setting aside reinstatement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Fatima Versus Muhammad Riaz Roshan2007 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-04
  Family lawCompromise agreementExecution of compromiseAdmission in plaintWithdrawn suitMaintenanceDowryDowerWrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the execution of a compromise agreement in a family dispute involving claims for dowry, maintenance, and dower. The petitioner's initial suits were dismissed based on a compromise, which she later alleged was not implemented. She sought execution of the compromise, but the High Court, upholding lower court decisions, found that the matter involved disputed questions of fact requiring a civil suit. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the compromise dated 18-11-2003 had been implemented, relying on an admission made by the petitioner herself in paragraph 3 of a subsequently filed (and withdrawn) civil suit. The Court also noted the respondent's offer to pay maintenance, which the petitioner accepted subject to the return of dowry. The key principle established is that an admission in a withdrawn plaint can be considered to determine the implementation of a compromise agreement, obviating the need for further factual inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can an admission made in a withdrawn plaint be considered to determine the implementation of a compromise agreement?
  • Is a formal decree-sheet always necessary for the execution of a compromise agreement in family matters?
  • Does an admission regarding the implementation of a compromise agreement preclude the need for recording evidence on disputed facts?
  • Can a High Court's decision be maintained on the ground of an admission made in a previously filed and withdrawn suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another Versus Darul Uloom Ghausia Hanfia Mohalla Dhabwala2007 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-12
  adverse possessionLimitation Actevacuee propertyproprietary titlepossessory titlesuit for possessionconstructive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for possession based on title, originally instituted by an allottee of evacuee property in 1981 and subsequently pursued by the respondent transferee. The defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession spanning over 60 years. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The High Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, finding that the revenue entries failed to establish adverse possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that Article 142 applies to suits based on possessory title, whereas Article 144 governs suits based on proprietary title. The Court clarified that possession for any duration does not become adverse unless open, hostile, and notorious to the owner's knowledge, with acts of ouster clearly pleaded. Furthermore, adverse possession cannot run against evacuee property while vested in the Custodian. Under Article 136, a vendee's suit is not barred unless the vendor was ousted by adverse possession.

  Questions settled

  • Which Limitation Act provision applies to a suit for possession based on proprietary title versus possessory title?
  • What specific elements must be pleaded and proven to establish a claim of adverse possession?
  • Can adverse possession be claimed against evacuee property while it remains vested in the Custodian?
  • How is the expression 'out of possession' interpreted under Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain alias Zahida Versus State2007 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-10
  jail petitionanti-terrorismidentification paradered bookinjured witnessmurdersubsequent statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder and other offences under sections 302/324/353/186/133/34 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the registration of the case on the basis of a subsequent statement recorded in the hospital vitiated the trial, whether the identification of the petitioner via photographs in the red book and newspapers was doubtful, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without detailed point-wise discussion. The Supreme Court held that the prompt FIR based on the statement of injured police officials was valid, the natural presence of the eyewitnesses established the occurrence, and minor defects in the High Court judgment caused no prejudice on merits as the material evidence was properly discussed. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of a second statement of an injured complainant in a hospital for FIR registration render the trial illegal?
  • Can the identification of a proclaimed offender by eyewitnesses based on photographs in the red book and newspapers be deemed reliable?
  • Does a lack of point-wise discussion of evidence by the High Court automatically vitiate an appellate judgment when material evidence is otherwise properly evaluated?
  • Is the direct and natural evidence of injured police witnesses sufficient to maintain a conviction without an identification parade?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Versus State2007 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-26
  qatl-i-amdta'zirqisas and diyatwaiver of qisasgrave and sudden provocationhonour killingpartial compromisequantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the respondents for qatl-i-amd under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reducing their sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court could sentence the accused under section 302(c) rather than section 302(b) when only the parents of the deceased had waived qisas while the husband had not, and whether the respondents acted under grave and sudden provocation to justify a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court held that since the conviction was under ta'zir rather than qisas, a partial waiver by some heirs does not permit sentencing under section 302(c); the offence required sentencing under section 302(b). Furthermore, the Court held that a marriage of choice a year prior to the occurrence does not constitute grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, converting the conviction to section 302(b) and sentencing the respondents to imprisonment for life, while setting aside the High Court's reduction of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether having held the respondents to be guilty of Qatl-i-Amd and in absence of requisite proof of Qisas, could the trial court sentence them under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the ground that parents of the deceased had granted waiver while her husband had not?
  • Whether an offence of Ta'zir under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be compounded partially by some legal heirs without the consent of all heirs?
  • Whether a marriage of choice contracted against the wishes of family members constitutes grave and sudden provocation to warrant a lesser punishment for murder?
  • Does a mere allegation of moral laxity without unimpeachable evidence constitute grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali Versus State2007 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-03
  criminal petition for leave to appealjudicial confessionretracted confessionfirearm expert reportmotivemurdersurrender of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life handed down by the Sessions Judge. The prosecution case was built on an eyewitness account, an alleged motive of old enmity, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon of offense, a judicial confession, and a positive forensic report matching the crime empty with the surrendered pistol. The core legal question centered on whether the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and true, and whether delays in forensic dispatch and surrender circumstances vitiated the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the voluntarism and truth of the confessional statement were sound, that minor delays in sending items to the forensic expert were inconsequential without proof of tampering, and that the retracted confession was sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon for conviction if found to be voluntary and true?
  • Does a delay in dispatching crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory automatically render the firearm expert report untrustworthy?
  • Whether the surrender of an accused and subsequent production of a weapon preclude a voluntary judicial confession a few days later?
  • Does a compromise between the legal heirs and a hostile witness vitiate the prosecution's case regarding the motive of old enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Versus Maula Bakhsh2007 SCMR 1446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-11
  inheritance mutationlaw of limitationdiscretionary reliefdeclaratory suitconcurrent findingsclean hands doctrinecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that reversed concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts, which had dismissed a suit challenging a 1942 inheritance mutation. The respondents, claiming to be heirs of Mst. Khairan, sought to invalidate a mutation sanctioned 46 years prior. The core legal questions were whether the law of limitation applies to inheritance disputes and whether the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on a misrepresentation of the pedigree. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its sweeping assertion that limitation does not apply to inheritance cases, noting that such claims must be brought with due diligence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the relief of declaration is discretionary, and plaintiffs who misrepresent material facts or fail to come with clean hands are disentitled to such relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the dismissal of the suit, and reaffirmed that statutes of limitation serve as essential instruments of peace and repose in litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the law of limitation apply to suits challenging inheritance mutations?
  • Can a court grant discretionary relief to a plaintiff who has misrepresented material facts in their pleadings?
  • Is a High Court justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance and pedigree?
  • Does the absence of specific pleadings regarding fraud or concealment preclude the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive, Ayub Medical Institution, Abbottabad and another Versus Dr. Waqar-Ur-Rehman Qureshi2007 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-26
  repatriationprobation periodex-pakistan leaveprinciples of natural justicemedical institutionservice lawsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed, declaring a notification invalid and upholding his status. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Professor at Ayub Medical College on probation, subsequently granted Ex-Pakistan leave to take up an assignment in Saudi Arabia, and later unilaterally repatriated to his parent department by the Chief Executive of Ayub Medical Institution. The core legal question was whether the respondent was an employee of Ayub Medical College and whether his unilateral repatriation during leave and probation without an inquiry or opportunity of hearing was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on valid reasons, finding that the respondent had completed his probation period, was granted leave and NOC by the competent authority, and could not be unilaterally repatriated without observing the principles of natural justice and service rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee on probation can be unilaterally repatriated to his parent department without an inquiry?
  • Does a medical institution have the authority to repatriate an employee during his approved Ex-Pakistan leave?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice apply before terminating or altering the service status of an employee on probation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Iqbal Versus State2007 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-15
  pre-arrest bailforgeryterritorial jurisdictionfurther inquirycriminal procedureFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and fraud. The petitioner and his mother were accused under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding alleged forged agreements to sell property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the seven-year delay in lodging the FIR, the jurisdictional issues regarding the police station where the FIR was registered, and the conflicting evidence regarding the handwriting expert reports. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry, noting the significant delay in registration and the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the police station involved. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a case requires further inquiry due to procedural irregularities and evidentiary doubts, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the lack of territorial jurisdiction of a police station over the disputed property be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the case against the accused requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Seamen's Workers Union through General Secretary Versus Pakistan Seamen's Union through Secretary2007 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-13
  Industry-wise Trade UnionNational Industrial Relations Commissiondelegation of powersregistration of trade unionstatutory interpretationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Sindh High Court order that set aside the registration of the petitioner-Union as an Industry-wise Trade Union by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal question was whether the Chairman of the NIRC could delegate the function of enquiring into and registering an Industry-wise Trade Union to a Deputy Registrar, rather than performing the function personally or through a constituted Bench of the Commission. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the statutory powers vested in the Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically regarding the registration of Industry-wise Trade Unions, are non-delegable to subordinate officers like the Deputy Registrar. The Court emphasized that the Ordinance requires such functions to be exercised by the Chairman or a Bench of the Commission. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Chairman's approval of a report by a Deputy Registrar, without independent application of mind or proper constitution of a Bench, was legally flawed and lacked jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission delegate the function of registering an Industry-wise Trade Union to a Deputy Registrar?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 permit the registration of an Industry-wise Trade Union without the Chairman or a Bench of the Commission applying their mind to the application?
  • Is the function of registering an Industry-wise Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, distinct from the registration powers of a Registrar of Trade Unions under Section 8 of the same Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Versus State2007 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-13
  kidnapping for ransomjail petitionidentification testransom notelife imprisonmentforfeiture of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition was directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with forfeiture of properties under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case was that the petitioner, along with co-accused, abducted a doctor at gunpoint, held him in captivity in a forest, and released him after receiving a ransom of Rs. 7,00,000. The petitioner pleaded false implication. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the evidence, noting that the abductee unequivocally identified the petitioner and testified to the abduction and ransom payment, which was corroborated by other witnesses and a written ransom note. The Court held that the ingredients of Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were fully attracted and that there was no lacuna in the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an abductee, corroborated by eye-witnesses and documentary evidence of a ransom note, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the release of an abductee only after the payment of a specified sum satisfy the statutory ingredients of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Fauji Foundation (Headquarters) through Manager Administration Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal2007 SCMR 1346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-13
  workman statusindustrial establishmentgrievance petitionsupervisory capacitylabour lawsFauji Foundationremandcontract of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the status of an employee of the Fauji Foundation, who was removed from service and filed a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions were whether the Fauji Foundation, a charitable organization, constitutes an "establishment" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the respondent, employed as a Superintendent (E&M), qualifies as a "workman" despite his supervisory duties. The Labour Court initially dismissed the petition, finding the respondent was not a workman, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court held that the lower forums failed to properly determine the legal character of the organization and the nature of the respondent's duties. The Court emphasized that the primary test for "workman" status is the nature of the work performed, not the designation, and that supervisory staff performing incidental manual work do not necessarily qualify as workmen. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower judgments and remanded the case for fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Fauji Foundation an 'establishment' as defined under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the performance of some manual work by an employee in a supervisory capacity automatically qualify them as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a 'workman' under labour laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Versus State2007 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-04
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, which resulted in a life imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—specifically last-seen evidence and motive—was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which suffered from significant infirmities and lacked the necessary characteristics to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the presence of unexplained articles and injuries on the deceased suggested a mysterious occurrence, yet the High Court erroneously drew inferences against the accused rather than in his favor. Emphasizing the fundamental principle of criminal justice that an accused is entitled to the benefit of any doubt arising in the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
  • Does the presence of unexplained physical evidence at a crime scene create a reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
  • Should inferences in a criminal trial be drawn in favor of the prosecution or the accused when evidence is ambiguous?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood Bawani Versus Deputy Controller Building Zone-B2007 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surriya Parveen Versus Muzaffar Islam Malik2007 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lalan Bibi and others Versus Muhammad Khan2007 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Muhammad Shafi2007 SCMR 1186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Versus Kalay Khan2007 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain and others Versus Senior Member, Board of Revenue2007 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and others Versus Arshad Iqbal2007 SCMR 1179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-19Read full judgment →
• Zaher Versus State2007 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and others Versus Province of Punjab2007 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-28Read full judgment →
• Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd. Versus Abdul Hameed2007 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  labour lawwrongful terminationreinstatementback-benefitscompensation in lieu of reinstatementindustrial relationsmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed by Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd. challenging a High Court judgment that awarded workers compensation in lieu of reinstatement alongside back-benefits following their dismissal. The core legal question was whether, under Section 46(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, a court can simultaneously grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-benefits for the period a worker remained out of service. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting both reliefs. The Court clarified that Section 46(5) provides for compensation in lieu of reinstatement as an alternative remedy when harmonious employment is no longer possible. The ratio established is that these two reliefs are mutually exclusive; if a worker is compensated in lieu of reinstatement, they are not entitled to back-benefits for the period they remained unemployed. Consequently, the Court set aside the modification of the appellate order that had granted both, affirming that the statutory scheme does not permit the simultaneous award of such compensation and back-benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court simultaneously award compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-benefits under Section 46(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Does the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, preclude a claim for back-benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs Versus Mst. Siddiqan Afzal2007 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-08
  customs seizureconfiscation of goodsshow-cause noticerepeal and savingsstatutory interpretationprocedural delayCustoms Act 1969
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside the confiscation of gold seized in 1963. The gold was originally seized under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, but adjudication proceedings, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, did not occur until 1978, long after the Customs Act, 1969, had come into force. The core legal question was whether the procedural requirements of the Customs Act, 1969, specifically the time limits for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 168(2), applied to goods seized under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of the saving clause in Section 221 of the Customs Act, 1969, actions taken under the repealed enactment are deemed to have been taken under the new Act. Consequently, the procedural mandates of the 1969 Act, including the requirement to issue a show-cause notice within two months of seizure, became applicable. As the notice was issued years after the statutory deadline, the confiscation was held to be legally unsustainable, affirming the High Court's decision to return the seized goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does the saving clause in Section 221 of the Customs Act, 1969, make the procedural requirements of the 1969 Act applicable to goods seized under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878?
  • Is the issuance of a show-cause notice within two months of seizure, as mandated by Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, a mandatory requirement for the validity of confiscation proceedings?
  • Can confiscation proceedings initiated years after the seizure of goods be sustained if they fail to comply with the statutory time limits for notice prescribed by the governing legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited through Attorney and others Versus Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi2007 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-12
  judicial reviewquantum of punishmentmisconductreinstatementgrievance petitiondouble jeopardyworkman
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected appeals arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which substituted an employee's penalty of dismissal from service with the withholding of two increments and ordered his reinstatement. The employee, an Officer Grade-III at Allied Bank of Pakistan, was dismissed for misconduct after getting questions answered in an accountancy paper during a professional examination. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court concerned the scope of the High Court's judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction regarding disciplinary matters, and whether the High Court or Labour Courts could alter or modify the quantum of punishment imposed by an employer. The Supreme Court held that while the determination of the quantum of punishment is ordinarily within the exclusive domain of departmental authorities, the High Court under Article 199 and the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, retain the jurisdiction to review and modify arbitrary or disproportionate penalties. To ensure substantial justice, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to withholding promotion for seven years.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the High Court's power of judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction regarding disciplinary penalties imposed by public organizations?
  • Does a Labour Court have the authority under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to modify a penalty determined by an employer?
  • Can the Supreme Court modify an inadequate or disproportionate disciplinary penalty to meet the ends of substantial justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashwani Hotels Limited Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance2007 SCMR 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-09
  sales tax exemptioncustoms dutystatutory interpretationtax concessionburden of proofimport valuationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Sindh High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the denial of sales tax exemption on an imported motorboat. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification S.R.O.212(I)/91, asserting the boat could not be manufactured locally. The core legal question was whether the appellant satisfied the conditions for exemption before the notification was withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove the boat could not be manufactured locally, as the initial 'no objection' was based on conjecture rather than verified facts. Consequently, because the exemption requirements were not fulfilled while the notification remained in force, the appellant became liable for sales tax upon the notification's withdrawal. The Court affirmed that tax exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer, and the burden rests on the claimant to demonstrate full compliance with all statutory conditions before the withdrawal of such benefits. The Court also declined to address the valuation dispute, noting it was not argued before the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving entitlement to a tax exemption lie with the taxpayer?
  • Can a claim for tax exemption be sustained if the statutory conditions are not met before the withdrawal of the exemption notification?
  • Should tax exemptions be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer?
  • Is a valuation dispute raised for the first time in appeal maintainable if it was not argued before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Siddique Anwar Versus Faisalabad Development Authority2007 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-03Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others Versus Muhammad Ali through Legal Representative2007 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and others Versus Abbas Ali Shah2007 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-23
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhadservice of noticepresumption of servicerebuttal of presumptionregistered postburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the central legal question concerns the validity of the service of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' under the Pre-emption Act. The respondent-plaintiff claimed to have performed the necessary demands, including sending notice of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' via registered post, which was returned with an endorsement of refusal. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, finding the service unproven. The High Court subsequently restored the decree. The Supreme Court held that while a presumption of service arises under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 when a notice is sent by registered post and returned with a 'refusal' endorsement, this presumption is rebuttable. Once the addressee appears in court and denies service on oath, the initial presumption is rebutted, and the burden shifts back to the sender to prove service, typically by producing the postman. As the respondent failed to produce the postman to verify the refusal, the service was not established, and the appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a presumption of service arise when a notice sent by registered post is returned with an endorsement of refusal?
  • Can the presumption of service arising from a 'refusal' endorsement on a registered letter be rebutted by the addressee's denial on oath?
  • Is the production of the postman necessary to prove service of a notice when the addressee denies receipt on oath?
  • Does the mere sending of a notice under the Pre-emption Act constitute sufficient compliance if the addressee denies service?
  Read full judgment →
• International Multi Leasing Corporation and others Versus Capital Assets Leasing Corporation Ltd.2007 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-11Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan and others Versus Attock Petroleum Ltd. Islamabad2007 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and others Versus Jamal Din2007 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Mst. Zainab Bibi2007 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-01Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali Versus Muhammad Farid2007 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-14Read full judgment →
• Qalandar and 4 others Versus Muhammad Rafi-Ud-Din2007 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-03Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali and others Versus Mst. Jamshed Bibi2007 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another Versus Government of N.-W.F.P. through Collector, Mardan2007 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Versus Abdul Salam Shah2007 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Amir Khan Versus Nadeem Akhtar2007 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-08
  election petitiondisqualification of candidateconcealment of assetsnotoriety of disqualificationrunner-up candidatefresh electionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the Election Tribunal's order which had declared the petitioner as the returned candidate for the office of Nazim after disqualifying the deceased returned candidate for concealment of assets. The core legal question is whether a candidate securing the second highest number of votes can be declared elected in place of a disqualified returned candidate when the disqualification was not established to be notorious at the time of polling. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that in the absence of positive evidence proving the notoriety of the disqualification at the time of polling, the votes cast for the disqualified candidate cannot be treated as thrown away, and the runner-up cannot be declared returned; rather, a fresh election must be held. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of throwing away votes requires strict proof of notoriety of the returned candidate's disqualification through positive evidence on record, failing which a fresh election is the proper remedy upon setting aside the election as a whole.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate securing the second highest number of votes be declared successful upon the disqualification of the returned candidate without proof of notoriety?
  • What standard of proof is required to establish the notoriety of a candidate's disqualification at the time of polling?
  • Does the concealment of assets by a returned candidate automatically render their disqualification notorious to the electorate?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Central Board of Revenue Versus Messrs Haq Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Burewala2007 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-12
  Sales taxSearch and seizureSearch warrantTax evasionProcedural safeguardsStatutory interpretationConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declared a raid and seizure of records by Sales Tax authorities at the respondents' business premises to be illegal and void. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax possessed the authority to conduct a search and seize documents without a warrant, and whether the statutory procedural requirements governing such actions were satisfied. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards stipulated in the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Specifically, the Court established that the power to conduct a search without a warrant under Section 40-A is not unbridled; it requires the officer to record in writing the specific grounds for their belief that evidence might be removed before a warrant could be obtained. Because the authorities failed to record these reasons or follow the prescribed procedure, the search was declared illegal, void, and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can sales tax authorities conduct a search of business premises without a warrant under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for an officer to conduct a search without a warrant under Section 40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, grant tax authorities unbridled power to search premises and seize records?
  • Is a search and seizure conducted by tax authorities illegal if the officer fails to record the grounds for their belief in writing?
  Read full judgment →
• Khyber Khan and others Versus Haji Malik Amanullah Khan2007 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-26
  pre-emptionTalb-e-Muwathibatplaint requirementssuperior right of pre-emptionland salecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the appellants regarding the sale of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the respondent possessed a superior right of pre-emption due to land contiguity and the performance of required Talbs. The appellate court reversed this finding, ruling against the respondent on the issue of contiguity but upholding the findings on Talbs. The High Court subsequently restored the trial court's decree in its revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the respondent's suit was liable to be dismissed because the plaint failed to specify the time, date, and place of the Talb-e-Muwathibat, relying on the precedent established in Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had failed to mention the time and place of the Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint. Applying the rule that the omission of any of these three particulars is fatal to a pre-emption suit, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the omission to mention the time, date, and place of making Talb-e-Muwathibat in a plaint fatal to a suit of pre-emption?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed solely on the basis of failing to plead the specific time and place of Talb-e-Muwathibat?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh and others Versus Muzaffar through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others Versus Shamim Ahmad Khan through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-28
  pre-emptionprinciple of sinkerdivisibility of saletenant's rightMartial Law Regulation 115remandburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court granting a decree for possession of land through pre-emption. The core legal questions concerned whether the principle of sinker applies to a tenant's right of pre-emption under Martial Law Regulation 115, and whether the principle of sinker requires specific pleading and the framing of an issue regarding the divisibility of a sale. The Supreme Court held that the principle of sinker is a question of fact that must be pleaded by the pre-emptor. Crucially, the Court determined that when the issue of sinker is raised, the trial court must frame a specific issue regarding the divisibility of the sale, placing the burden of proof on the defendant-vendee. Because the trial court failed to frame such an issue, the vendees were denied the opportunity to prove the sale was divisible, which could have averted the application of the sinker principle. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to allow parties to lead evidence on the divisibility of the sale.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of sinker apply to a tenant's right of pre-emption under Martial Law Regulation 115?
  • Must the plea of sinker be raised in the pleadings by the pre-emptor?
  • Is the divisibility of a sale a question of fact that requires a specific issue to be framed by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies III, Karachi and others Versus Messrs Pakistan Electric Manufacturing Co. Ltd.2007 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-27
  income tax appealconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionlimitation periodrectification of orderfinality of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which converted a time-barred income tax appeal into a constitutional petition and allowed it, setting aside concurrent orders of the tax authorities. The core legal questions involved whether an income tax appeal filed long after the dismissal of a second appeal was maintainable, and whether the High Court erred in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to bypass statutory limitation periods and finality of orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court improperly exercised writ jurisdiction by converting a time-barred appeal into a constitutional petition after considerable delay, ignoring the fact that the original assessment order had attained finality. The Court laid down the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the bar of limitation and revive matters that have already achieved finality through the prescribed statutory hierarchy without any apparent error on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an income tax appeal filed against an original assessment order after a considerable delay is time-barred and maintainable?
  • Whether the High Court can lawfully convert a time-barred income tax appeal into a constitutional petition?
  • Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge an order that has already attained finality through the statutory hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Versus Federation of Pakistan through President President's Secretariat, Islamabad2007 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus State2006 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-31
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionLalkaracriminal leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether an accused person attributed with raising a Lalkara in furtherance of a murder, with a prior motive stemming from the deceased being a witness in another case, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that where the petitioner is specifically nominated and attributed a concrete role with a clear motive, the Lalkara cannot be deemed proverbial at the bail stage, and consequently refused leave to appeal. The Court laid down the principle that the assessment of evidence at the bail stage is purely tentative and that specific roles coupled with established motive disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail, resulting in the recall of the interim bail earlier granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused attributed with raising a Lalkara is entitled to post-arrest bail when a clear motive and specific role are established?
  • Does the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage affect the merits of the case before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus State2006 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-09-26
  death sentencemitigating circumstancemotiveself-defenceocular evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the unproved motive or the abandoned plea of self-defence constituted a mitigating circumstance for a lesser punishment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable ocular evidence, the inadequacy, weakness, or failure to prove a motive—or a motive shrouded in mystery—does not serve as a mitigating circumstance. Furthermore, a plea of self-defence mentioned during investigation but abandoned during the section 342 statement under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be considered. The key principle laid down is that unproved motive and abandoned pleas of self-defence do not mitigate the sentence when direct ocular evidence firmly establishes guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inadequacy or failure to prove a motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for a lesser punishment when ocular evidence is unimpeachable?
  • Does failing to press a plea of self-defence in a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to abandoning that plea?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused receives no injuries during the alleged scuffle?
  Read full judgment →