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 Arshad Versus State2006 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  jail petitiongrave and sudden provocationfamily honourqatal-e-amadcapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 302(b) read with section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was tried by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the murders of his mother, sister, and two brothers, and was sentenced to death on four counts alongside other punishments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's act of killing four family members upon suspecting his sister's illicit relations constituted grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate the sentence to lesser punishment under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that mere suspicion of a female's illicit liaison and grievances regarding family honour do not amount to grave and sudden provocation, and brutality directed at multiple family members disentitles the accused to leniency. The key principle laid down is that suspicion of illicit relations cannot excuse murder or serve as a mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment under criminal law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere suspicion of a female family member's illicit relations constitutes grave and sudden provocation to reduce a murder sentence?
  • Can the murder of multiple family members under the guise of family honour serve as a mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment?
  • Does a plea of grave and sudden provocation require evidentiary support beyond the accused's statement to alter the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus State2006 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-24
  ocular evidencebenefit of doubtmurder convictionleave to appealappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular evidence was reliable despite alleged contradictions with medical evidence, whether the petitioner was entitled to the same benefit of doubt as his acquitted co-accused, and whether the prosecution's case suffered from material discrepancies requiring independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular testimony of the complainant and the eyewitness was consistent, trustworthy, and established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused, who was unarmed, thereby justifying the difference in treatment. The Court further noted that the High Court had already exercised leniency by reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is credible and corroborated by circumstances, and the roles of co-accused are distinct, the acquittal of one does not automatically entitle the other to the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle the main accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is ocular testimony considered reliable when it is consistent and corroborated by the circumstances of the case?
  • Can a court distinguish between the roles of co-accused when determining the applicability of the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad Versus State2006 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-07-15
  narcotics possessionrecovery witnesschemical analysisleave to appealcriminal convictionsample sufficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1120 grams of heroin. The petitioner contended that the prosecution's case was flawed due to the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery and the insufficiency of the chemical analysis, as only one gram of the substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court addressed whether the lack of independent witnesses and the sampling method invalidated the conviction. The Court held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is specifically excluded by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, rendering the absence of public witnesses non-fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a single gram sample is sufficient for chemical analysis when the narcotics are not contained in separate packets. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contentions, declined leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to a narcotics recovery invalidate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to recoveries made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a one-gram sample of heroin sufficient for chemical analysis in a narcotics possession case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain Versus Municipal Committee, Bhalwal2006 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus State2006 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-06
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonymedical evidencedeath sentencetypographical errorforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentence of the appellant for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony, the impact of alleged discrepancies between medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the nature of the projectiles used, and the effect of the prosecution's failure to send crime scene empties for forensic analysis. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting the prompt registration of the F.I.R., the appellant's apprehension at the scene with the incriminating weapon, and the corroborative medical evidence. The Court clarified that the use of the word "pellets" in the medical report was a typographical error for "bullets," thus resolving the alleged inconsistency. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that in the presence of confidence-inspiring ocular testimony and other incriminating circumstances, the failure to send empties for forensic analysis does not vitiate the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does a typographical error in a medical report regarding the type of projectile used invalidate the ocular account of a murder?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained if the prosecution fails to send crime scene empties to a forensic expert?
  • Is the apprehension of an accused at the crime scene with an incriminating weapon sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazar Abbas Jaffri Versus Secretary to Government of the Punjab2006 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-13
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantpolitical interferencetrichotomy of powersservice tribunalillegal appointmentsconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a civil servant for allegedly making unauthorized appointments under political pressure. The petitioner, having been penalized with a reduction in pay scale, challenged the order before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which modified the penalty. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner could be penalized for actions taken under political duress and whether such interference was lawful. The Court held that the petitioner had acted in accordance with the law by resisting illegal political pressure, noting that public representatives lack the authority to dictate administrative appointments. The Court set aside the penalty, emphasizing that the doctrine of the trichotomy of powers must be strictly observed. It reiterated that all state organs are bound by Supreme Court judgments under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that civil servants must perform their duties within the parameters of the law, independent of political interference, and that actions taken in violation of these principles, or under the dictation of unauthorized public representatives, are invalid and contrary to the constitutional scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be penalized for refusing to comply with illegal appointment orders issued under political pressure?
  • Are judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan binding on all organs of the State under the Constitution?
  • Do public representatives like MNAs or MPAs possess the legal authority to direct the appointment of government employees?
  • Does the doctrine of the trichotomy of powers prohibit the executive from interfering in the administrative functions of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain Qazi, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi Versus Authorized Officer, the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2006 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-24
  misconductgovernment servantdisciplinary proceedingsconduct rulesproperty purchaselimitationservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld a disciplinary penalty imposed on the petitioner, an Income Tax Officer. The petitioner was penalized with the withholding of one annual increment for three years for misconduct, specifically failing to obtain prior permission for the purchase of a plot of land, despite having received a house building advance. The core legal question was whether the sanctioning of a house building loan by the authorities constitutes implied permission for the purchase of property under the relevant conduct rules. The Supreme Court held that the mere sanction of a loan does not equate to the mandatory permission required for property transactions under Rule 11 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed regulatory procedure. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed on the additional ground of being time-barred, as no plausible explanation for the delay was provided, and the case lacked a question of general public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sanctioning of a house building advance by the government constitute implied permission for the purchase of property under the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964?
  • Is a government servant required to obtain separate, explicit permission for the purchase of immovable property even if a house building loan has been sanctioned?
  • Does the failure to obtain prior permission for the purchase of immovable property constitute misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Versus State2006 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealsodomymurderocular testimonyforensic evidenceacquittal reversalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a jail petition challenging a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had modified the trial court's decision regarding the conviction and sentencing of the accused for the murder and sodomy of a twelve-year-old boy. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical and forensic evidence, and the validity of the Federal Shariat Court's reversal of an acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the Federal Shariat Court, finding that the prosecution had established its case through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence confirming sodomy, and forensic reports linking the accused to the crime via blood-stained weapon recovery. The Court held that the initial acquittal of one of the appellants by the trial court was perverse and based on a misreading of evidence. The principle affirmed is that where ocular testimony is corroborated by medical and forensic findings, it constitutes sufficient proof of guilt, justifying the reversal of an arbitrary or capricious acquittal by a lower court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reverse an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, and based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Is ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder and sodomy?
  • Does the failure of an accused to examine themselves on oath under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the court's assessment of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghufrala Tauseef Versus Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore2006 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-02Read full judgment →
• Ashir Wasim Babar Versus State2006 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-08-26
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestattempted murdermala fidescriminal petitionevading arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under sections 324, 337-A(2), and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing shots and inflicting pistol-butt injuries on the complainant's head. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail based on alleged mala fides and political victimization, and whether prima facie evidence connected him to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence and the F.I.R. established a prima facie case against the petitioner, and that his attempt to evade arrest while openly contesting local government elections did not entitle him to pre-arrest bail, particularly given the unrecovered weapon of offense. The key principle laid down is that an accused facing serious non-bailable charges supported by prima facie and medical evidence, who actively evades arrest while utilizing influence during election processes, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person who fails to substantiate allegations of mala fides is entitled to pre-arrest bail when prima facie and medical evidence connects him to the crime?
  • Does the failure of local authorities to arrest an accused person involved in a heinous offense during an election process justify granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is recovery of the weapon of offense a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and another Versus State2006 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-17
  sodomyunnatural offencesole testimonymedical evidenceleave to appealcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and maintained their conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy, while extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the sole testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt narration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for sodomy in the absence of independent corroboration or proof of prior animosity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through credible and consistent testimony supported by medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that the uncorroborated sole testimony of a victim of sodomy, when found truthful and reliable and supported by prompt complaint and medical evidence, is legally sufficient to form the basis of a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the sole testimony of a victim in a sodomy case?
  • What is the effect of the accused failing to establish alleged animosity for false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another Versus State2006 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  jail petitioncondonation of delaycapital punishmentconcurrent findingsinjured eyewitnessmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and maintained their conviction and sentence for multiple murders. The core legal question involved the assessment of concurrent findings of guilt based on ocular testimony in a brutal multiple homicide case, and whether a delay of 640 days in filing the jail petition could be condoned where the death penalty was awarded. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time with no plausible explanation, and on merits, the concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by irrefutable ocular accounts of injured eyewitnesses and a proven motive, disclosing no legal infirmity. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of guilt based on trustworthy testimony of injured witnesses, corroborated by motive and free from material irregularities, will not be interfered with, and extreme delay without justification bars relief even in capital punishment cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a jail petition barred by an unexplained delay of 640 days can be entertained merely because the petitioners were awarded the death penalty?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court when supported by injured eyewitnesses?
  • Whether the testimony of injured eyewitnesses provides sufficient ocular account to sustain a conviction for multiple murders?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus State2006 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-19
  leave to appealmurder convictionocular evidencemedical evidenceshifting defensefirearm injurycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Iqbal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, Babar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, motivated by a prior quarrel over a buffalo, shot the deceased. The petitioner challenged the conviction, offering conflicting defense versions, including a claim of accidental firing during a confrontation with a co-accused. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and eyewitnesses, which was corroborated by the medical evidence regarding the firearm injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that the petitioner's shifting defense theories lacked credibility and failed to address the motive established by the prosecution. Finding no illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the lower court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that the prosecution had fully established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a conviction where the ocular evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does a shifting and inconsistent defense version weaken the credibility of an accused in a murder trial?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained when the prosecution establishes motive and ocular testimony despite the accused's claim of accidental firing?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Versus State2006 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-08
  criminal appealgrave and sudden provocationocular evidencemurder convictionSection 302(b) PPCappreciation of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s defense of grave and sudden provocation—alleging he killed the deceased upon discovering him in a compromising position with his sister—was credible, and whether the prosecution's ocular evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal or factual error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the defense version was implausible, particularly as the woman's husband did not corroborate the claim and the circumstances contradicted the petitioner's narrative. The Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is consistent, natural, and supported by medical evidence, and the defense version is inherently improbable, the conviction is sustainable. Additionally, the Court noted that the failure of an accused to testify on oath to support a plea of grave and sudden provocation significantly weakens the credibility of that defense.

  Questions settled

  • Is a plea of grave and sudden provocation credible when the husband of the woman involved in the alleged incident does not corroborate the defense version?
  • Does the failure of an accused to testify on oath to support a plea of grave and sudden provocation weaken the defense?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when the defense version is found to be inherently improbable and unsupported by surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• I.-G. (Prisons) N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and others Versus Muhammad Israil, Assistant Superintendent Jail, Haripur2006 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-06-19
  prison escapeservice lawdisciplinary proceedingssupervisory negligencecompulsory retirementservice tribunalcomplete justicejail administration
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from an appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Prisons against a Service Tribunal judgment that exonerated an Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Muhammad Israil, following the escape of five under-trial prisoners. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the officer in charge, was liable for the escape despite the negligence of his subordinates. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in its findings by misreading the evidence. The Court established that as the Chief Executive of the prison, the respondent bore ultimate responsibility for maintaining discipline and ensuring the safe custody of prisoners. His failure to enforce staff presence and conduct mandatory surprise night visits constituted gross negligence. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment. Exercising its constitutional authority to ensure complete justice, the Court enhanced the respondent's punishment from a reduction in rank to compulsory retirement, ruling that an officer responsible for such a lapse was unfit for service. The judgment reaffirms that higher positions entail greater accountability and that supervisory negligence is an aggravating factor in disciplinary matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the responsibility of a jail officer in charge extend to the negligence of subordinates leading to a prisoner escape?
  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan enhance a punishment awarded to a civil servant during an appeal against a Service Tribunal decision?
  • What are the obligations of a prison officer in charge regarding the supervision and discipline of subordinate staff under the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978?
  • Does the misreading of material evidence by a Service Tribunal justify the interference of the Supreme Court in a service matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizum alias Toor Versus Nander Khan2006 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sartaj and others Versus Mushtaq Ahmad2006 SCMR 1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-04
  Islamic law of inheritanceQisas and Diyatcompromise in murder caselegal heirsexclusion of heirscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that remanded a criminal case to the trial court to verify if all legal heirs had consented to a compromise in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased are considered legal heirs entitled to participate in a compromise under the law, or if the father of the deceased, as the sole heir, is exclusively competent to enter into such a compromise. The Supreme Court held that, under Islamic law, the father of an unmarried deceased excludes the brothers and sisters from inheritance. Consequently, the father is the sole legal heir competent to enter into a compromise. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the brothers and sisters were not legal heirs and thus their consent was not required for the compromise. The principle laid down is that the father of an unmarried deceased person inherits to the total exclusion of the deceased's brothers and sisters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the father of an unmarried deceased exclude the brothers and sisters of the deceased from inheritance under Islamic law?
  • Is the consent of the brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased required for a compromise in a murder case?
  • Is the father of an unmarried deceased the sole legal heir competent to enter into a compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary Punjab and others Versus Abdul Raoof Dasti2006 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-02
  illegal appointmentreversion in ranklien on postinitial recruitmentservice tribunalextraneous groundspublic trustmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Chief Secretary of Punjab challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the reversion of the respondent from the post of Deputy District Attorney (DDA) to Assistant District Attorney (ADA). The respondent, originally an ADA, had obtained a direct appointment as a DDA through the intervention of the Law Minister and the approval of the Chief Minister, bypassing the Public Service Commission and statutory rules. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 resulted in his reversion to ADA. The core legal question was whether a direct appointment secured in violation of recruitment rules could be sustained, and whether a civil servant whose direct appointment is found illegal can revert to a previously held lower post despite having lost lien. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appointment of the respondent as a DDA was illegal, void, and secured through extraneous influence. The Court further ruled that since his appointment was by initial recruitment rather than promotion, he held no lien on the post of ADA and could not fall back upon it, ultimately setting aside the Tribunal's order and declaring that he ceased to be a civil servant. The key principle laid down is that illegal appointments made through nepotism and extraneous considerations violate public trust, preclude the retention of a prior lien upon invalid direct recruitment, and warrant complete cessation of service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a direct appointment to a public post made in violation of recruitment rules and without public advertisement can be sustained under a general power of relaxation?
  • Does a civil servant appointed directly to a higher post retain a lien on their previously held lower post if the higher appointment is declared illegal?
  • Whether non-participation in an inquiry proceeding vitiates the punitive action where material facts are not in dispute and no prejudice is caused?
  • Can the Supreme Court invoke its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan to modify a departmental penalty and declare that a respondent ceases to be a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and others Versus Khawaja Shahid Nazir2006 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-27
  stopgap arrangementservice tribunalreversionevacuee trust property boardlimitationdepartmental appealvested rightpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had set aside the notification reverting the respondent from the post of Secretary (BPS-19) to his substantive post of Zonal Administrator (BPS-18) in the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The core legal question was whether the respondent's appointment as Secretary was a regular promotion creating vested rights or merely a stopgap arrangement, and whether his departmental appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an appointment made 'until further orders' constitutes a stopgap arrangement rather than a regular promotion, which can be terminated without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the Court held that a time-barred departmental appeal renders a subsequent service appeal incompetent. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made 'till further orders' constitute a regular promotion or a stopgap arrangement?
  • Can an employee reverted from a stopgap appointment claim a right to a show-cause notice or hearing?
  • Is a service appeal competent when the underlying departmental appeal is barred by time?
  • Whether the post of Secretary of the Evacuee Trust Property Board is a promotional post for board employees under the applicable regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.189 of 2006, decided on 28th April, 2006. Versus Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.189 of 2006, decided on 28th April, 2006.2006 SCMR 1805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-28
  juvenile justicesuo motuillegal detentionjudicial remandpolice misconductfettering of minorsjudicial discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suo motu action initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan following media reports regarding the illegal detention and shackling of minor children by police in Hyderabad. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the detention of juveniles, the application of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the propriety of the judicial remand orders passed by the Magistrate. The Court held that the detention of the minors was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which mandates that juveniles should not be handcuffed, fettered, or subjected to corporal punishment, and should ideally be released on bail or placed under the custody of a Probation Officer. The Court found that the Judicial Magistrate had acted illegally by remanding a juvenile to judicial custody, citing an incorrect and suspended judgment to justify his actions. Consequently, the Court restrained the Magistrate from exercising judicial powers pending departmental proceedings and directed the police to expedite investigations into the conduct of the responsible officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 prohibit the handcuffing and shackling of minors in police custody?
  • Can a Judicial Magistrate remand a juvenile to judicial custody when the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides for alternative custody arrangements?
  • Is a Judicial Magistrate justified in relying on a High Court judgment that has been suspended by the Supreme Court?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for a Magistrate when a juvenile is produced before them without a guardian?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No.3062 of 2006 (anonymous application), decided on 6th July, 2006. Versus Human Rights Case No.3062 of 2006 (anonymous application), decided on 6th July, 2006.2006 SCMR 1780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-06Read full judgment →
• Faqir Abdul Majeed Khan Versus District Returning Officer2006 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq and another Versus State2006 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-06-22
  criminal appealplea of alibiappreciation of evidenceocular testimonycorroborative evidenceabsconsionfinger print expertrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the complainant's ocular testimony, the validity of the plea of alibi supported by jail records, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unsustainable due to misreading of evidence and failure to apply settled legal principles. The Court found the complainant's presence at the crime scene highly improbable given the intensity of the attack and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the recovery evidence due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and unexplained delays in forensic submission. Regarding the alibi, the Court ruled that the Finger Print Expert's report lacked evidentiary value absent proof of comparison with undisputed thumb impressions. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, establishing that absconsion is not corroborative evidence and that ocular testimony disbelieved against some co-accused cannot sustain convictions against others without independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony that has been disbelieved regarding some co-accused be relied upon to convict others without independent corroboration?
  • Is the evidence of absconsion considered a valid piece of corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
  • Does a Finger Print Expert's report have evidentiary value if there is no proof of comparison between disputed and undisputed thumb impressions?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to comply with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Flying Board and Paper Products (Pvt.) Limited Versus Deputy Collector of Customs, Dry Port, Lahore2006 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-25Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan and 2 others Versus Ghulam Shabbir2006 SCMR 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus State2006 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-17
  murder convictionsole eye-witnessresiling complainantFIR corroborationrecovery of weaponcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister-in-law under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness, the father of the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction when the complainant had resiled from his initial statement at trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court determined that the presence of the deceased's father at the scene was natural and his testimony credible, particularly when supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court laid down the principle that while an FIR is not substantive evidence, it may serve as a source of independent corroboration when the testimony of a witness is consistent with the facts originally recorded therein. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appellant's guilt were upheld as the evidence was deemed unimpeachable and free from legal defect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the sole testimony of an eye-witness when the complainant has resiled at trial?
  • Is an FIR considered substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can an FIR be used for independent corroboration of a witness's testimony?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon at the instance of an accused provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No.3212 of 2006, decided on 6th July, 2006. Versus Human Rights Case No.3212 of 2006, decided on 6th July, 2006.2006 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain Versus State2006 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-20
  post-arrest baildissolution of marriageHudood Ordinancefurther inquiryvalidity of court decreecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for bail filed by the petitioner, Mazhar Hussain, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 179 of 2002 at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad, for an alleged offence under the Hudood Ordinance involving an illicit liaison with the complainant's wife, Mst. Nasreen. The petitioner contended that Mst. Nasreen had obtained a court decree dissolving her previous marriage to the complainant, Faqir Hussain, and had subsequently married the petitioner of her own free will, resulting in a child. While the State argued that the dissolution decree was ex parte and therefore questionable, the Court observed that the decree remained valid and had not been annulled by any appellate court. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry, satisfying the criteria for bail. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, with the petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a marriage dissolved by a court decree, which has not been annulled by an appellate court, preclude the commission of an offence under the Hudood Ordinance?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the validity of a divorce decree remains a matter requiring further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus State2006 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-30
  death sentencedouble murderleave to appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal liabilityeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the death sentence of the petitioner for the double murder of two women. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution initially alleged five attackers were involved, yet the High Court acquitted two co-accused, thereby suggesting the petitioner should not bear sole liability for the deaths. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that while the High Court acquitted the co-accused due to the lack of identification parades and the witnesses' inability to identify them earlier, the petitioner’s case was distinct. The Court found that the eye-witnesses, who were the petitioner's nieces, had consistently assigned a specific role to him in their statements. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused did not create a mitigating circumstance for the petitioner, as the evidence against him remained distinct and credible. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal and affirming the death sentence, establishing that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle a remaining convict to a reduced sentence where specific evidence of their individual culpability exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on identification issues automatically entitle a remaining convict to a reduced sentence?
  • Is an in-court identification of accused persons valid when no identification parade was conducted and the witnesses were minors at the time of the occurrence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained against one accused when the prosecution initially alleged the involvement of multiple attackers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir Versus State2006 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-06
  murderleave to appealfalse defence pleaappreciation of evidenceprivate defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the petitioner's conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased by stabbing. The core legal question involved the assessment of the prosecution's case in light of a specific defence plea and private version of events set up by the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging private defence and involvement of his sister. The Supreme Court held that the defence plea was implausible, fabricated, and rightly rejected by the courts below, while the prosecution had successfully and independently proved its case through eye-witnesses, medical evidence, motive, and recoveries. The court laid down the principle that while an accused cannot be condemned solely for taking a false plea, the court remains bound to independently evaluate and consider the prosecution evidence to establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of taking a false plea in defence?
  • Whether the court is bound to consider prosecution evidence independently even if the defence plea is found to be false?
  • Does the failure of a defence plea under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically strengthen the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh Versus The State2006 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-23
  Qatl-e-AmdQatl-e-Khataocular evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) as alleged by the complainant, or Qatl-e-Khata (accidental killing) as suggested by a police re-investigation report. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses was consistent, trustworthy, and established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The Court further ruled that the absence of a forensic science laboratory report regarding the recovered weapon did not necessitate acquittal when other evidence was cogent and convincing. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the lower courts' reliance on the eye-witness account over the police's investigative conclusion, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a forensic science laboratory report regarding a recovered weapon automatically entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can ocular evidence prevail over a police investigation report suggesting accidental death?
  • Is a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd sustainable when the prosecution relies on eye-witness testimony despite conflicting police investigation findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Zulfiqar Ahmad Versus Aftab-Ul-Haq2005 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Said Wahab Khan Versus Amjad Ali2005 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Versus Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore2005 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-28
  service matterage relaxationillegal terminationmunicipal committeeconstitutional petitionreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against the termination of the petitioner's service as an Encroachment Inspector by the Municipal Committee, Tandalianwala. The core legal question concerns the legality of the petitioner's appointment and whether his being over-age invalidated his selection, given that rule 5(3) of the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 permits relaxation of the upper-age limit up to five years. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declaring the appointment illegal on the ground of age disqualification, as the Chairman of the Municipal Committee possessed the requisite statutory authority to relax the age limit up to five years, and the petitioner's case had been mistakenly referred to the provincial government for a minor remaining period. The appeal was accepted, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated, and the competent authority was directed to formally determine the remaining age relaxation pursuant to the applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of a Municipal Committee is competent to grant relaxation in the upper-age limit for employment under the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983?
  • Can an appointment be declared illegal solely on the ground of being over-age when the competent authority possesses the statutory power to relax the age limit?
  • Whether the High Court can refuse to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction based on a mistaken assumption regarding a candidate's qualification and age relaxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur Versus Rizwan Rashid2005 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others Versus Muhammad Khan2005 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Wazir Versus Sher Afzal2005 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Bano alias Gulab Bano Versus Mst. Noor Jehan2005 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-11
  colonization of government landsinheritance of tenancyshariat successionconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionforged challanagricultural land allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision judgment wherein the High Court declared the respondents' predecessor to be the sole owner of disputed agricultural land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912. The core legal question concerned whether the original allottee had paid the full price during his lifetime, thereby making him absolute owner whose estate devolves under Sharia, or whether his son subsequently paid the balance, entitling him to exclusive tenancy succession. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts—that the original allottee had cleared all dues before his death—were supported by the record and that the opposing receipt relied upon by the son was forged and fictitious. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the concurrent decrees in favour of the daughters were restored. The key principles laid down include that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be lightly interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless perverse, and that tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 devolve in accordance with Sharia if the original allottee became full owner during his lifetime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of land price under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912?
  • Does the succession to a tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 devolve under Sharia if the original allottee paid the full price during his lifetime?
  • Can the retrospective application of section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 override the special provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 where the tenant died prior to 1951?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramesh M. Udeshi Versus The State2005 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-14
  Ehtesab Referenceabuse of official positionallotment of landpublic office holdercriminal appealacquittalsummary to Chief Minister
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a former Secretary of the Land Utilization Department, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Ehtesab Act No. IX of 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abused his official position by submitting a summary to the Chief Minister recommending the allotment of state land to private beneficiaries at a throwaway price in violation of an existing ban, thereby causing a massive loss to the state exchequer. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act of preparing and forwarding the summary, which correctly disclosed all relevant facts, the ban on land disposal, and the statutory requirements, constituted a criminal abuse of authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the summary was prepared in accordance with law, fully disclosing all material facts and legal constraints. In the absence of any evidence of mala fide intention, illegal gratification, or personal pecuniary gain, a conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public official be convicted of corruption for submitting a summary to a superior authority that accurately discloses all relevant facts and legal constraints?
  • Whether a conviction for corruption or abuse of official position can be sustained in the absence of evidence showing mala fide intention, illegal gratification, or personal pecuniary gain?
  • Can a subordinate officer be held criminally liable for acting as a conduit to communicate the approved orders of a superior authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Versus The State2005 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-01-27
  compromisecompounding of offenceTa'zirQisasDiyatlegal heirsmurder sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's application for acquittal or reduction of sentence on the basis of a partial compromise. The petitioner had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While some legal heirs of the deceased (the widow and a major daughter) agreed to waive their right of Qisas and Diyat, the parents of the deceased refused to join the compromise. The core legal question was whether a death sentence awarded as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be compounded where only some, but not all, of the legal heirs of the deceased agree to the compromise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that while a sentence of Qisas may be compounded by some of the legal heirs subject to statutory conditions, a sentence of Ta'zir under Section 302(b) is governed by Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which strictly requires the consent of all legal heirs of the deceased to compound the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of death awarded as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded if only some of the legal heirs of the deceased agree to the compromise?
  • Does the waiver of Qisas by some legal heirs under Section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to cases where the offender is sentenced to Ta'zir under Section 302(b)?
  • Is the court empowered to grant permission to compound a Ta'zir murder offence under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the consent of all legal heirs of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ameeran Khatoon Versus Mst. Shamim Akhtar2005 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Satti Versus Mst. Aasia Khatoon2005 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-13
  LianQazfZinadissolution of marriagetalaqillegitimate childHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court was directed against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had allowed a criminal revision filed by the respondent wife. The appellant husband had pronounced divorce (Talaq) upon his wife and, in the same notice, accused her of unchastity and giving birth to an illegitimate child. The respondent subsequently filed a complaint against the appellant under Sections 7 and 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. During the trial, the appellant sought to initiate proceedings for Lian under Section 14 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a charge of Zina leveled against a wife by her husband along with a divorce attracts the provisions of Lian, and whether Lian is applicable once the marriage is dissolved. The Supreme Court held that for Lian proceedings to be initiated under Section 14 of the Ordinance, the relationship of husband and wife must subsist at the time of the accusation. Since the marriage had already been dissolved, Lian was inapplicable, and the husband could be tried for the offence of Qazf.

  Questions settled

  • Does a charge of Zina leveled against a wife by her husband along with a divorce notice attract the proceedings of Lian under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can proceedings for Lian be initiated or maintained under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 after the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved?
  • Is the subsistence of a valid marriage a condition precedent for invoking the procedure of Lian under Islamic law and the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus I. A. Sharwani2005 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-01-09
  pension rightscivil servantsdiscriminatory classificationIslamic InjunctionsFederal Shariat Courtpension revisionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Federal Shariat Court judgment that declared the classification of pensioners into 'old' and 'new' categories discriminatory and inconsistent with Islamic Injunctions. The core legal question was whether civil servants of the same grade, retiring on different dates, are entitled to identical pension amounts, and whether the government's failure to equalize these amounts violates Islamic principles of 'Adl' and 'Ihsan.' The Supreme Court held that pension is a statutory right governed by the rules in force at the time of retirement. The Court ruled that the classification of pensioners based on retirement dates is reasonable and not discriminatory, as pension quantum is tied to emoluments and service length at the time of retirement. Consequently, the revision of pay scales for serving employees does not grant retired employees a right to notional pension revision. The Court concluded that existing pension laws are not repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, as the government retains discretion to manage pension schemes within fiscal constraints. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the original petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the classification of pensioners into 'old' and 'new' categories based on retirement dates discriminatory?
  • Does the revision of pay scales for serving civil servants automatically entitle retired employees to a notional revision of their pension?
  • Are pension laws that differentiate between pensioners based on retirement dates inconsistent with the Islamic principles of 'Adl' and 'Ihsan'?
  • Is a pension a statutory right that must be determined by the rules in force at the time of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ahmad Hassaan Versus Government of Punjab2005 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-09-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Ishaque Hussain Rizvi Versus Sheikh Mubarik Ali2005 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-05-02
  specific performancecompromise decreesubsequent agreement to sellexecution of decreelis pendensbona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves direct cross-civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning competing claims over agricultural land based on multiple agreements to sell and a prior compromise decree. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of a separate suit under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in relation to a subsequent agreement, the validity of agreements executed post-decree, and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to sales executed during the pendency of proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a subsequent agreement independent of a prior compromise decree can validly form the basis of a suit for specific performance, and that section 47 does not bar such a separate suit where the rights do not flow directly from the execution of the decree itself. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding the subsequent agreement void and restored the appellate court's judgment decreeing the suit in full.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a separate suit for specific performance is barred under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for enforcing an agreement executed subsequent to a compromise decree?
  • Does an agreement to sell executed after the passing of a compromise decree acquire the status of an independent, valid document creating enforceable rights in property?
  • Whether a sale-deed executed during the pendency of a suit is hit by the principle of lis pendens and affects the rights of prior claimants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Versus State2005 SCMR 1431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-05-17
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessesforensic science reportchain of custodyleave to appealpresumption of truth
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner contended that the occurrence was unwitnessed, the ocular evidence was provided by interested witnesses, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the number of gunshot wounds. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the integrity of the forensic evidence, arguing that the chain of custody for crime empties was not established. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the FIR was lodged without delay and the ocular witnesses remained consistent under cross-examination. Regarding the forensic evidence, the Court held that the official report from the Forensic Science Expert carries a presumption of truth, which the petitioner failed to rebut during the trial. Finding the conviction unexceptionable and noting the absence of any question of law of public importance, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic science report carry a presumption of truth regarding the receipt of evidence if not challenged during trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence if the witness is related to the deceased?
  • Is a dishonest concession by a witness regarding the delivery of forensic parcels sufficient to invalidate a forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Wali Muhammad2005 SCMR 1297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-10Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and others Versus Ghulam Farid through L.Rs. and others2005 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-01-26
  leave to appealinheritance disputeconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidencecustomary lawIslamic injunctionsRiwaj
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a property inheritance dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the deceased daughter predeceased her father, making the petitioners (collaterals) entitled to the legacy under Riwaj, or survived him, making the respondents legal heirs entitled to the property under Islamic Injunctions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered with the concurrent findings upon discovering a misreading of evidence by the lower courts, specifically relying on the testimony of a witness and documentary evidence showing the daughter survived the father. The Court affirmed that inheritance must be governed according to the Injunctions of Islam rather than custom (Riwaj) under such circumstances, dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts in revision?
  • Does a misreading of evidence by lower courts warrant interference by the High Court?
  • Whether inheritance is to be governed by Riwaj or Islamic Injunctions when evidence shows a daughter survived her father?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Versus Deputy Director Food2005 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-02-24
  departmental proceedingscriminal prosecutionservice lawwheat shortagedisciplinary actionmutual exclusivityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner, a Food-grain Inspector, regarding a wheat stock shortage. The petitioner had been removed from service and ordered to pay recovery for a loss of 354 metric tons of wheat. The Tribunal set aside the removal but maintained a reduced recovery order, citing the petitioner's joint responsibility for the loss due to failure to conduct proper weighment during the handover of charge. The core legal question was whether the police's discharge of the petitioner in a parallel criminal case precluded departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings are mutually exclusive and can proceed simultaneously. The Court affirmed that a police investigation's findings regarding guilt are not binding on departmental authorities, who may independently determine misconduct under service rules. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law of public importance and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the petitioner's negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discharge of a civil servant by the police in a criminal case preclude departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Are criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings mutually exclusive and capable of being taken simultaneously?
  • Is the finding of the police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused binding on departmental authorities in disciplinary matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zulfiqar Versus The State2005 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appeallast-seen evidencesafe dispensation of criminal justicerecovery evidencecapital punishmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Zulfiqar, was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, for offences under sections 302(b), 365, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence, which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. The conviction relied primarily on 'last-seen' evidence and the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased, which occurred fifteen days after the incident at the petitioner's pointation. Notably, the trial court had acquitted the petitioner's co-accused based on contradictory prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the 'last-seen' evidence and the delayed recovery of articles were legally sufficient to establish guilt, particularly given that the same prosecution evidence was rejected regarding the co-accused. The Court also seeks to examine whether the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice were adhered to by the lower courts in maintaining the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on 'last-seen' evidence and delayed recovery when the same evidence was disbelieved regarding co-accused?
  • Does the rejection of prosecution evidence against co-accused on grounds of contradiction necessitate a re-evaluation of the same evidence against the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakindar Shah Versus The State2004 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dying declarationretracted judicial confessionocular evidenceleave to appealmurderappreciation of evidenceinjured witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the petitioners' convictions for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a dying declaration, the testimony of an eyewitness not named in the FIR, and the validity of a retracted judicial confession, alongside the sustainability of convictions for causing injuries where the injured witnesses were not produced. The Supreme Court held that the convictions for murder were sound, as the dying declaration, the independent ocular account, and the retracted judicial confession were voluntary and mutually corroborative. The Court affirmed that a retracted judicial confession can sustain a conviction if found to be confidence-inspiring and corroborated. However, the Court set aside the convictions under section 307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, because the prosecution failed to produce the injured witnesses in court to substantiate the charges of causing injuries. The judgment reinforces that the non-naming of a witness in an FIR does not inherently invalidate their testimony, particularly when the parties are strangers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and corroborated by other evidence?
  • Does the failure to name an eyewitness in the FIR automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction under section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable if the injured witnesses are not produced in court to testify?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible if recorded in the presence of a doctor who certifies the injured person's fitness to speak?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Zahid Versus Mrs. Nilofer Akhtar2004 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performanceextension of timesale considerationcivil revisionleave to appealdecreecontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision. The petitioner sought an extension of time to pay the balance sale consideration in a suit for specific performance of a contract, which had been decreed in his favor. The trial court had previously rejected the petitioner's application for an extension of time to deposit the balance amount. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a court retains the jurisdiction to enlarge or extend the time fixed for the payment of balance consideration after a decree for specific performance has already been passed. The Supreme Court observed that this issue is one of first impression and lacks an authoritative precedent from the Court, specifically noting that existing case law like Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din (PLD 1966 SC 983) arose from pre-emption suits rather than specific performance decrees. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the trial court's power to extend time post-decree and issued interim directions regarding the deposit of the balance consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court retain the jurisdiction to extend the time fixed for the payment of balance consideration after a decree for specific performance has been passed?
  • Is the principle established in Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din (PLD 1966 SC 983) regarding the extension of time applicable to decrees for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazran Bibi Versus Mst. Sharifan Bibi2004 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Versus The State2004 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealmurderdeath sentenceextra-judicial confessionperson in authorityrecovery of crime emptiesre-appraisal of evidenceAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirmed his death sentence awarded by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution relied primarily on an extra-judicial confession made to the petitioner's superior officer and another witness, along with forensic matching of a recovered rifle to a crime empty. The petitioner contended that the extra-judicial confession before a person in authority was inadmissible due to potential influence, that the witnesses' conduct cast doubt on the confession, and that the prosecution's failure to account for all recovered empties rendered the corroborating forensic recovery doubtful. Finding that the points raised concerning the admissibility and reliability of the extra-judicial confession and the integrity of the corroborative evidence warranted comprehensive re-appraisal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made by an employee before his superior officer in authority is admissible without establishing that it was free from influence?
  • Whether withholding one of multiple recovered crime empties from forensic examination casts doubt on the recovery evidence used to corroborate a capital charge?
  • Whether conviction on a capital charge can be sustained solely on extra-judicial confession when corroborative recovery and motive evidence are disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus The State2004 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-12
  murderocular evidencemedical evidenceabsconsionmotiveleave to appealcriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for the murder of his son-in-law under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular account was reliable despite alleged conflicts with medical evidence, whether the non-examination of a key witness (the deceased's wife and petitioner’s daughter) vitiated the prosecution's case, and whether the motive and absconsion were sufficiently established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular testimony of the deceased's mother and brother was consistent and credible, and that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version. The Court ruled that the non-production of the daughter as a witness was understandable given the familial relationship and did not warrant an adverse inference. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the prosecution successfully established the motive and that the petitioner’s prolonged absconsion served as a supporting circumstance of guilt. The judgment reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies in medical evidence do not necessarily invalidate consistent ocular testimony, and that the non-examination of a close relative witness is not fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-examination of a close relative as a witness necessarily create an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is challenged for alleged conflicts with medical evidence?
  • Is the prolonged absconsion of an accused after a crime a valid supporting circumstance to prove guilt?
  • Does the motive of a father killing his son-in-law due to an unwanted marriage constitute sufficient evidence of intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Versus Rana Mahmood Ahmad2004 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis Versus Abdul Ghaffar2004 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus The State2004 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  post-arrest bailcross-versionprivate complaintprohibitory clausefirearm injuryappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a case registered under Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(ii), 337-H(ii), and 452 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the case involved cross-versions, that a private complaint had been filed due to the non-registration of their FIR, and that the injuries were not serious, thereby keeping the case outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that because the petitioner was armed with a firearm and had caused injuries, the court could not evaluate the evidence or determine the aggressor at the bail stage. The Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, but granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application after some evidence is recorded by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the court deeply appreciate evidence or determine the aggressor in a cross-version case at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version private complaint automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail where firearm injuries are alleged?
  • Can an accused whose bail is refused at an early stage be granted liberty to apply for bail afresh after some evidence has been recorded by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary (Schools), Government of the Punjab, Lahore Versus Muhammad Sharif Tirmazi2004 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicedisciplinary actionmajor penaltyminor penaltyreduction in paywithholding of incrementsPunjab Service Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 for non-maintenance of a cash-book and voucher tampering. The departmental authority imposed a major penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in the lower time scale. On appeal, the Punjab Service Tribunal converted the major penalty into a minor penalty of withholding three increments. The core legal question was whether the departmental authority could lawfully reduce a civil servant's pay by three stages under rule 4(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and whether the Service Tribunal's modification of the penalty was justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave, holding that rule 4(b)(i) permits reduction to "a" lower stage in time scale, meaning reduction to only one lower stage. The court affirmed that penalties exceeding statutory bounds are unlawful, and the minor penalty awarded by the Service Tribunal met the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 4(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 permit reduction in pay by more than one stage lower in the time scale?
  • Can a departmental authority impose a major penalty exceeding the maximum reduction in pay authorized under the relevant efficiency and discipline rules?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the authority to modify an unlawful major penalty to a minor penalty where charges of embezzlement are not proved by cogent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus The State2004 SCMR 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-15
  leave to appealmurdercapital punishmentdeath sentenceocular evidenceinjured witnesscorroborationmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with convictions under section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining the death sentence and awarding compensation under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question involves assessing the reliability of ocular testimony from related and injured witnesses in a capital case and the necessity of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not discredit straightforward and natural eyewitnesses, particularly when an injured witness is present and corroborated by medical evidence and motive. The ratio affirms that the rule of corroboration is not inflexible and is only invoked when direct evidence lacks standard reliability, refusing leave to appeal and upholding the conviction and death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses requires independent corroboration in a capital case?
  • Is the rule of corroboration an inflexible rule applicable in all circumstances?
  • Do minor contradictions and discrepancies in statements of eyewitnesses destroy the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Whether medical evidence and motive can provide sufficient corroboration to the ocular account of natural witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus The State2004 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-12-09
  leave to appealconcurrent findingsinjured witnessesmedical evidencecriminal revisionconviction and sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision against his conviction and sentence as affirmed by the appellate court. The core legal question involved the sustainability of concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate and high court based on consistent testimony of injured witnesses supported by medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's guilt were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and that no legal infirmity or illegality was pointed out to warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in criminal matters where the testimony of injured witnesses is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and no jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of conviction affirmed by the High Court when based on consistent testimony of injured witnesses?
  • Does medical evidence corroborating the ocular account sustain a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable without pointing out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Javed Versus Director Food, Punjab2004 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-28
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsembezzlementcivil servantsservice tribunalex parte proceedingsfair hearingmisappropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement and recovery of funds from civil servants in the Food Department following allegations of wheat misappropriation. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were denied a fair hearing and whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally flawed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners were not condemned unheard. The record demonstrated that the petitioners had willfully absented themselves from the disciplinary proceedings despite being served with proper notices, including a notice published in the press. The Court affirmed that the departmental findings of embezzlement, based on a comprehensive inquiry and upheld by the Service Tribunal, were factual determinations that did not warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant who deliberately avoids participating in disciplinary proceedings cannot subsequently claim a denial of due process or a fair hearing, particularly when the authority has complied with mandatory procedural formalities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim denial of a fair hearing if they willfully avoid participating in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is a departmental finding of fact regarding embezzlement, upheld by a Service Tribunal, subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the publication of a notice in the press satisfy the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Versus Nazir Ahmad2004 SCMR 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-15Read full judgment →
• Nawazo Versus The State2004 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-28
  surety bonddischarge of suretyabsconding accusedcriminal revisionbail bond forfeiture
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's criminal revision against an order forfeiting his full surety amount. The petitioner had stood surety for three accused persons in a murder case and subsequently moved an application before the trial court stating that the accused were preparing to abscond and requesting the cancellation of his bail bonds and the taking of the accused into custody. The trial court, however, issued notice to the accused instead of taking them into custody immediately, during which time the accused absconded. The core legal question was whether a surety remains liable for the penal sum when he produces the accused along with an application to be discharged from surety obligations and the court fails to take the accused into custody promptly under Section 502(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that once the surety produces the accused and requests discharge, the trial court is required to act expeditiously and take the accused into custody rather than issuing a delaying notice, and the surety cannot be held responsible for the subsequent escape of the accused. The Court laid down the principle that courts must deal with surety discharge applications expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments or issuing notices that afford accused persons an opportunity to abscond.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a surety is absolved from liability when he produces the accused in court and applies for the cancellation of surety bonds due to the apprehension that the accused will abscond?
  • Does Section 502(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a trial court to immediately take an accused into custody upon the surety's application for discharge?
  • Can a surety be held liable for the full surety amount if the accused absconds due to the trial court's failure to act promptly on a discharge application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Versus Muhammad Sher Khan2004 SCMR 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Jafri Versus Registrar, Lahore High Cqurt, Lahore2004 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-12-01
  service appealdepartmental inquirydouble jeopardyacquittal in criminal casemisconductcivil servantdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal upholding the dismissal of the petitioner, an ex-Civil Judge, from service. The petitioner was apprehended at Heathrow Airport, London, in 1987 with heroin concealed in his luggage, subsequently convicted by a British Crown Court, but later acquitted by a British Court of Appeal. After his initial reinstatement, the competent authority initiated a regular departmental inquiry against him on multiple charges including drug smuggling, bringing disrepute to the judiciary, and living beyond means, which resulted in his dismissal. The core legal questions involved whether a departmental inquiry is barred after acquittal in criminal proceedings and whether it amounts to double jeopardy under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, serving different purposes, and an acquittal in a criminal court does not bar departmental action for service misconduct. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings are barred after the acquittal of a civil servant by a criminal court of law?
  • Does holding a departmental inquiry subsequent to a criminal trial amount to double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Are criminal judicial trials considered a substitute for departmental inquiries regarding service discipline?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Azam Khan2004 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Muhammad Saeed2004 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-11-19
  specific performanceagreement of saleregistered documentunregistered documentpossessionarbitration awardregistration act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' revision petition regarding a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether a composite document settling a property dispute and recording the relinquishment of a prior registered agreement of sale in favor of a new agreement constituted an enforceable agreement of sale or an award by an arbitrator requiring to be made a rule of the court. The Supreme Court held that the document was indeed an agreement of sale and could be specifically enforced, and further held that under Section 48 of the Registration Act, the priority of a registered document is displaced where possession is delivered under a subsequent unregistered document. The key principle laid down is that a composite settlement document containing an independent agreement to rescind a prior sale and transfer rights, accompanied by delivery of possession, operates as a valid agreement of sale enforceable in law despite prior registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a composite settlement document can be construed as an agreement of sale rather than an arbitration award?
  • Does an unregistered agreement of sale accompanied by delivery of possession take precedence over a prior registered agreement of sale under Section 48 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can an agent's authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of a principal be established orally in the absence of pleadings to the contrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain Versus Habib Bank Limited2004 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawcivil servant statusService Tribunals Actworkmanjurisdiction of service tribunalSection 2-Aemployment termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service on the grounds that, as a 'workman,' he was not a 'civil servant' and thus lacked standing before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether employees of corporations or bodies controlled by the Federal Government, who are classified as workmen, fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal misconstrued Section 2-A. The Court ruled that Section 2-A creates a legal fiction, conferring the status of 'civil servant' upon all employees of such organizations for the limited purpose of seeking redress before the Service Tribunal, regardless of whether they are classified as workmen or contract employees. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle established is that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, overrides the restrictive definitions of 'civil servant' found elsewhere, granting all employees of covered organizations access to the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer the status of 'civil servant' on employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government for the purpose of invoking the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction?
  • Are employees classified as 'workmen' excluded from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does the definition of 'civil servant' in Section 2(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 restrict the scope of Section 2-A of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan Versus Rab Nawaz2004 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-11-05
  inheritance mutationestoppel by conductShia lawlimitationrevenue recordco-sharerssuccessors-in-interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the inheritance rights of an issueless widow under Shia law and the limitation period for challenging revenue mutations. The core legal question was whether the successors-in-interest of the deceased’s brothers could challenge a 1964 inheritance mutation granting a 1/4th share to the widow, Janat Bibi, after decades of acquiescence. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs were estopped by their predecessors' conduct. The Court found that the brothers had voluntarily conceded the share to the widow out of respect, and their failure to challenge the mutation for over a decade, combined with the widow’s continuous possession, precluded the current suit. The key principle laid down is that heirs are estopped by the conduct of their predecessors-in-interest who have conceded property rights through mutation. Furthermore, long-standing, unchallenged entries in revenue records, where the parties have acted in accordance with those entries, cannot be reopened after an inordinate delay, as such actions are barred by the law of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can successors-in-interest challenge an inheritance mutation that their predecessors-in-interest voluntarily conceded?
  • Does the principle of estoppel by conduct apply to heirs challenging property rights previously accepted by their predecessors?
  • Is a suit challenging a long-standing, unchallenged revenue mutation barred by limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through the Director (E.E.), Lahore Division, Lahore Versus Muhammad Afzal2004 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-29
  service tribunaldismissal from servicedisciplinary proceedingsregular inquiryillegal appointmentpetitioner leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from his post as a PTC teacher. The core legal question involved whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissal of the respondent, on allegations of a bogus appointment, were conducted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law and principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was legally flawed as no regular inquiry was conducted pursuant to the prescribed rules, the respondent was condemned unheard after rendering six years of service, and the allegations of a fake appointment were not substantiated by any credible evidence. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that haphazard probes failing to follow mandatory procedural safeguards have no legal sanctity, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether dismissal from service without conducting a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is sustainable?
  • Can an employee be dismissed on allegations of a bogus appointment without being afforded a proper opportunity of hearing?
  • Does a haphazard probe without following the prescribed departmental procedure carry any legal significance?
  Read full judgment →
• D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd Versus Federation of Pakistan2004 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-11-11
  sales taxtime of supplyadvance paymenttaxable supplyadditional taxpenaltystatutory interpretationcement industry
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves appeals concerning whether sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is payable upon the receipt of advance consideration for taxable supplies or deferred until the actual delivery of goods to the purchaser. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of 'time of supply' and 'taxable supply' when advance payments are received. The Supreme Court held that where consideration is received in advance, the time of supply is deemed to be the date of receipt of the advance payment, making sales tax due by the twentieth of the succeeding month, and the date of advance receipt can be construed as the date of sale for tax purposes. However, the Court further held that since the non-payment within the tax period arose from a genuine legal controversy over statutory interpretation rather than wilful default or mala fide evasion, the imposition of additional tax or penalties under section 34 was not justified. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions must be construed harmoniously to prevent avoidance through delayed accounting, but penal consequences like additional tax require wilful default or mala fide conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sales tax is payable from the date of receipt of advance consideration for a taxable supply or from the date of actual delivery of goods?
  • Does the receipt of an advance payment for goods constitute a 'time of supply' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Is the imposition of additional tax as a penalty under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 mandatory when the non-payment stems from a bona fide legal interpretation of the statute?
  • Can the date of receipt of advance consideration be construed as the date of sale for the purpose of assessing and paying sales tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi Versus Government of the Punjab2004 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-07
  probationertermination simpliciterautomatic confirmationshow-cause noticeservice tribunalAdditional District and Sessions Judgefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained the termination of his services as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's period of probation was automatically confirmed after two years, and whether his services could be terminated without a show-cause notice during the probationary period. The Supreme Court held that under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the probation period can be extended up to four years, and automatic confirmation does not occur. Furthermore, under section 10(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a probationer's services can be terminated simpliciter without a show-cause notice if no stigma of misconduct is attached. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of probation can be extended beyond two years and lead to automatic confirmation if no order is passed?
  • Can the services of a probationer be terminated without issuing a show-cause notice under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does termination simpliciter of a probationer require inquiry or notice when no stigma of misconduct is attached?
  • Whether the High Court or Government can be compelled to reinstate a judicial officer whose probationary termination was lawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman-Ud-Din Versus Sahibzada Jehanzer2004 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-06
  pre-emptionpre-emption moneydeposit of sale pricediscretionary powernegligenceact of courtextension of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court dismissed the respondent's suit for failure to deposit one-third of the pre-emption money within the stipulated time under Section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The Appellate Court subsequently set aside this dismissal, allowing the deposit, attributing the delay to the misappropriation of funds by a court clerk. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Appellate Court could exercise discretionary power under Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time for deposit when the default was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence rather than an act of the court. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s reliance on the court clerk was not an 'act of the court' and constituted gross negligence. Consequently, the Court ruled that the suit was correctly dismissed by the trial court. The principle laid down is that discretionary power to extend time under Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be exercised to condone a party's own negligence or to defeat the mandatory statutory requirements of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987.

  Questions settled

  • Does the misappropriation of pre-emption money by a court clerk constitute an 'act of the court' that justifies extending the time for deposit?
  • Can a court exercise its discretionary power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to condone a plaintiff's failure to deposit pre-emption money due to their own negligence?
  • Is the dismissal of a pre-emption suit mandatory upon the failure of the plaintiff to deposit one-third of the sale price within the time fixed by the court?
  • Does the failure to deposit pre-emption money within the prescribed time result in the automatic dismissal of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Madad Khan Versus Haji Hakim Gul2004 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performanceland acquisitionfrustration of contractamendment of plaintconsequential reliefagreement of sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that remanded a suit for specific performance back to the trial court, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plaint to seek compensation following the compulsory acquisition of the subject land. The core legal question was whether the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act frustrates an agreement of sale, thereby rendering a suit for specific performance unmaintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquisition of land does not frustrate an agreement of sale. The Court affirmed that even if the land is acquired, a decree for specific performance remains viable because the vendee effectively steps into the shoes of the vendor to receive the compensation awarded for the acquisition. Consequently, the High Court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint to claim such compensation was upheld as legally sound. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the matter by a specified date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the compulsory acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act frustrate an agreement of sale?
  • Can a vendee in a specific performance suit claim compensation awarded for land acquisition if the property is acquired during the pendency of the suit?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to amend a plaint in a specific performance suit to seek consequential relief regarding compensation after the subject land is acquired?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Ismailia Versus Khalid Mehmood2004 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-31
  specific performancejudicial orderadmissioncomparison of signatureagreement for salecivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of a concurrent judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court upholding a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a house in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether a party's admission and statement regarding the execution of an agreement and receipt of consideration, as formally recited in a previous judicial order of a civil court between the same parties, can be relied upon and given full faith without needing formal confrontation as a prior statement, and whether the court is competent to compare disputed signatures. The Supreme Court held that judicial proceedings and orders containing recitals of a party's statements are entitled to full faith and credit and do not require the formal confrontation rules applicable to extra-judicial or pleadings-based admissions, and further affirmed that courts are statutorily empowered to compare disputed signatures. The petition was dismissed as no substantial question of law was involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement of a party recited in a previous judicial order between the same parties can be relied upon without formal confrontation?
  • Does a court have the legal competence to compare a disputed signature or writing with an admitted one under the law?
  • Can a judicial order containing recitals of a party's statement be discredited solely on the basis of a subsequent oral denial?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Ali Haideri Versus Government of Balochistan2004 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-21
  constitutional petitionoriginal jurisdictionpublic importancefundamental rightsservice tribunalseniority disputemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  These Constitution petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged the seniority determination of Deputy Superintendents of Police and sought to overturn a previous judgment of the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) for individual service grievances without any question of public importance, and whether a bench of the Supreme Court can sit in judgment over an order of another bench or re-open a finally adjudicated matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that individual seniority disputes do not implicate any question of public importance concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights, and that the original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) cannot be invoked to challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court itself or to re-open a closed chapter. The key principles laid down are that Article 184(3) jurisdiction is strictly confined to matters of public importance involving fundamental rights and cannot be used to ventilate individual service grievances or as an appellate forum against orders passed by another bench of the same Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable for the redressal of an individual seniority-related service grievance?
  • Can a bench of the Supreme Court act as a court of appeal over an order or judgment passed by another bench of the same Court?
  • Whether proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution can be initiated to re-open a matter already finally adjudicated upon under Article 185 of the Constitution?
  • Does an individual service grievance involving inter se seniority affect the public at large so as to attract the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ghafoor Piracha Versus Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi2004 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  disciplinary actionboard employeestatutory rulescompetent authorityconstitutional petitionservice regulationspowers of chairman
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeals by the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the dismissal of his constitutional petitions challenging his suspension, show-cause notices, and ultimate removal from service. The petitioner, a Junior Clerk of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, contended that the Chairman of the Board lacked the lawful authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or dismiss him. The core legal question centered on whether the Chairman possessed the statutory power to dispense with the petitioner's services and whether the service regulations and adopted efficiency and discipline rules had statutory backing. The Supreme Court held that while the Board's regulations and adopted rules lacked statutory status and operated merely as internal instructions, the Chairman, as the principal executive officer and appointing authority, possessed the requisite legal authority under the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 to take disciplinary action against employees in lower pay scales. The Court established that the Controlling Authority is not the exclusive body empowered to initiate disciplinary measures, and the petitions were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education has the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and dismiss an employee appointed by him?
  • Do service regulations framed by the Board without the formal approval of the Government possess statutory status?
  • Is the Controlling Authority the sole authority empowered to suspend or remove employees of the Board under the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976?
  • What is the legal status of Efficiency and Discipline Rules adopted by a Board through a resolution without formal government sanction?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Versus Sardar Muhammad2004 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus The State2004 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-22
  surrender to custodyleave to appealcriminal appealmaintainability of petitionconvicthardship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by a convict, Muhammad Iqbal, seeking to have his petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entertained by the Supreme Court without him first surrendering to custody. The applicant, who had been convicted under Section 302(b)/34 and Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that he should be exempted from the requirement of surrendering to custody because he was the sole breadwinner for his large family and his incarceration would cause them irreparable hardship. The Supreme Court rejected this application, holding that the financial or personal hardship of a convict's family does not constitute a valid legal ground for relaxing the mandatory requirement of surrendering to custody before a petition for leave to appeal can be entertained. The court reaffirmed the principle that a convict must surrender to custody to maintain the maintainability of their petition before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict file a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution without surrendering to custody?
  • Does the status of being the sole breadwinner for a family constitute a valid ground for waiving the requirement to surrender to custody before filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Versus District and Sessions Judge2004 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-02-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazar Hussain Versus National Bank of Pakistan2004 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  unfair labor practiceNIRC jurisdictionwrit jurisdictiondismissal from serviceconstitutional petitionback-benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of the National Bank of Pakistan, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) reinstating him. The core legal question was whether the NIRC possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner's dismissal as an "unfair labor practice" and whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction while an appeal was pending before the NIRC. The Supreme Court held that the NIRC acted without jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to establish the essential elements of unfair labor practice as defined by statute. Consequently, the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to declare the NIRC's order void. The Court affirmed the principle that where an order or proceeding is patently without jurisdiction, the High Court is competent to issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, regardless of the pendency of other proceedings. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declined leave.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate an individual grievance of dismissal as an unfair labor practice without establishing the statutory elements of such practice?
  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 against an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission that is patently without jurisdiction?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal before the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Public Works Department Government of Punjab, Lahore Versus National Industrial Relations Commission2004 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-10Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal, Administration Faisalabad City Versus Muhammad Saleem2004 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-02
  leave to appealfactories actstatus quopayment of wagessupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an impugned judgment, wherein the petitioner contended that the judgment violated the principles laid down in Town Committee Ghakhar Mandi v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others (PLD 2002 SC 452). It was further contended that the petitioner does not fall within the definition under clause (j) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1934, as it is not involved in making, altering, or preparing any article or substance with a view to its sale and transportation. The respondent argued that the controversy requires the recording of evidence, which is currently underway. The Supreme Court observed that the dictum laid down in the Town Committee case appeared, prima facie, to have been ignored by the lower forum. Finding the contentions raised by the parties worthy of consideration, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed that status quo be maintained in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 2(j) of the Factories Act, 1934 apply to a petitioner not involved in making, altering, or preparing articles for sale and transportation?
  • Does the failure to follow the dictum laid down in a binding precedent warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Versus The State2004 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-12-10
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed F.I.R.concurrent sentencesleave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for causing injuries with a firearm. The petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment, which had upheld his conviction while modifying the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the ocular account and its corroboration by medical evidence, and whether the delay in filing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution had proved its case to the hilt through the testimony of the injured witness and other eye-witnesses, whose accounts were consistent with the medical evidence showing ten injuries on the victim. The Court found no illegality or misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the ocular account, when fully corroborated by medical evidence and where the delay in reporting is satisfactorily explained, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in filing an F.I.R. necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case if the delay is explained by the need to prioritize medical treatment for the injured?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to order sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus The State2004 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-24
  bail bondsuretyabscondenceforfeiture of bondpenaltycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the forfeiture of a bail bond by the trial court. The petitioners had acted as sureties for an accused in a murder case who subsequently absconded. The trial court forfeited the bail bond and imposed a penalty of Rs. 90,000, slightly less than the full bond amount of Rs. 1,00,000. The core legal question was whether the courts below erred in their treatment of the surety bond forfeiture. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court had already been lenient by not imposing the full penalty. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that in matters involving the forfeiture of bail bonds due to an accused's abscondence, courts must not take a lenient view. It emphasized that the entire amount of the bail bond should be recovered as a penalty, as reducing such amounts encourages abscondence and undermines the administration of justice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Should courts take a lenient view when forfeiting bail bonds for absconding accused?
  • Is the full amount of a bail bond recoverable as a penalty when an accused absconds?
  • Does the reduction of a bail bond penalty encourage abscondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Versus Amir Zaman and others2004 SCMR 1924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  re-investigationsubsequent reportSection 173 CrPCpolice investigation powerstrial court discretioncognizance of offenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an Intra-Court Appeal order of the High Court directing the police to submit a report following re-investigation in a murder and attempted murder case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant contended that the police had no jurisdiction or statutory power to re-investigate a criminal case once the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been submitted and cognizance had been taken by the trial court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 debars the police from conducting a subsequent or further investigation to unearth the truth, even after submission of the initial challan report. The Court further clarified that the trial court remains un-bound by police opinions formed during re-investigation and possesses independent judicial discretion to evaluate all material collected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit the police from re-investigating a case after a report under Section 173 has been submitted to the court?
  • Can the police submit a subsequent investigation report in supersession of an earlier report after the court has taken cognizance?
  • Is a trial court bound by the opinion expressed by police officers in a re-investigation report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Akhtar Versus District Judge, Attock2004 SCMR 1839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  child custodywelfare of minorguardian and wardsremarriage of motherhizanatmuslim personal lawsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an appellate court's decision granting custody of a minor daughter to the father. The parties were previously married and divorced, entering into a settlement regarding the custody and maintenance of the minor. The father subsequently sought custody under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, relying on the mother's remarriage to a stranger and an alleged breach of the custody agreement, though the father himself had defaulted on maintenance payments and contracted a second marriage. The core legal question was whether the father's preferential right to custody under Muslim Personal Law overrides the paramount consideration of the minor's welfare when the mother remarries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right to custody is not absolute and is always subject to the welfare of the minor. The Court affirmed that remarriage of the mother or a default by her does not automatically entitle the father to custody if the welfare and best interests of the child dictate otherwise, particularly where the father's own conduct regarding maintenance and remarriage is questionable.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a father to the custody of a minor child under Muslim Personal Law an absolute right?
  • Does the mother's remarriage to a person outside the prohibited degree automatically deprive her of the right of custody?
  • Can a father who has defaulted on maintenance payments claim custody of the minor based on a breach of a custody agreement by the mother?
  • What is the paramount consideration in determining the custody of a minor under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus Inspector-General of Police2004 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-26
  pro forma promotionseniorityservice lawlimitationjudgment in personamnon-joinder of partiespast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which rejected the petitioners' claims for pro forma promotion. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners could claim promotion based on the analogy of earlier judgments in favor of their juniors, and whether their claims were barred by limitation and the non-joinder of necessary parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the previous judgments relied upon by the petitioners had attained finality and were judgments in personam, not in rem, thus providing no legal basis for the petitioners' claims. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to challenge the disturbance of their seniority in a timely manner, rendering the matter past and closed. Additionally, the Court noted that granting the relief would adversely affect numerous senior colleagues who were not impleaded as parties. The key principle laid down is that an aggrieved employee cannot rely on judgments in personam to claim benefits if they failed to challenge the underlying administrative decisions in time, and that failure to implead necessary parties whose rights would be affected renders such petitions incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an aggrieved employee claim pro forma promotion based on the analogy of a judgment in personam obtained by other employees?
  • Does a departmental representation filed after the prescribed period create a fresh cause of action for the purpose of limitation under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Is a petition for service-related relief competent if the grant of such relief would adversely affect senior colleagues who were not impleaded as parties?
  • Can a past and closed transaction regarding seniority be reopened after the relevant judgments have attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Shamsur Rehman Versus Mst. Chaman Dasta2004 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Sastay Khan Masood Versus The State2004 SCMR 1766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-03-30
  briberyillegal gratificationirregular investigationcurable irregularitycriminal trialjurisdiction of trial courtprevention of corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction for bribery. The core legal question is whether an initial investigation conducted by an unauthorized provincial agency into the conduct of a federal employee vitiates the subsequent trial and conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction. The Court held that while the initial investigation by the provincial Anti-Corruption Establishment may have been irregular, such procedural defects do not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or invalidate the trial, provided no miscarriage of justice occurred. The Court established the principle that irregularities in police investigation are curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the adjudication of an accused's guilt is independent of the manner in which they were brought to trial; a conviction remains valid if the evidence establishes the offence, regardless of procedural flaws in the investigative process, provided the trial court possessed the requisite jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an irregular investigation by an unauthorized police agency vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Is a trial court's jurisdiction affected by procedural defects in the initial police investigation?
  • Are irregularities in police investigation curable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the tainted currency notes were not produced in court due to misappropriation by police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmad and another Versus Shahid Mirza2004 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  summary suitleave to defendconditional leavedishonoured chequejudicial discretionbank guaranteeOrder XXXVII CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for the recovery of money based on a dishonoured cheque. The appellants challenged the trial court's order granting only conditional leave to defend, which required the provision of a bank guarantee. Upon the appellants' failure to furnish the guarantee, the trial court struck off their defence and decreed the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question is whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in imposing conditions for leave to defend and whether the subsequent decree was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the grant of conditional or unconditional leave depends on the plausibility and quality of the defence presented. Where a defence lacks substance or is based merely on unsubstantiated oral allegations, the court is not obligated to grant unconditional leave. The Court affirmed that trial courts possess the discretion to impose conditions, and such discretion, if exercised reasonably and based on the material before the court, will not be interfered with on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend a summary suit as a matter of right if the defence is merely plausible?
  • Can a court grant a decree in a summary suit if the defendant fails to comply with a condition imposed for leave to defend?
  • What is the governing factor for a court to determine whether to grant conditional or unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit?
  • Does the failure to provide a bank guarantee for conditional leave to defend automatically justify the striking off of a defence and the passing of a decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khair-UN-Nisa Channa Versus Federation of Pakistan2004 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-09
  recovery decreeexecution proceedingsleave to defendbanking courtundertakingattachment and sale of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought to challenge a final recovery decree passed against her in a banking suit after her application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed. In the execution proceedings, the petitioner had given a statement undertaking to pay the decretal amount in installments and not to challenge the auction of her property, but subsequently backed out of this arrangement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner could not legally challenge the original decree in the execution proceedings or in the present petition since she had failed to challenge it through an appeal when it attained finality. The Court further noted that while a party cannot contract out of legal remedies, the consequence of the petitioner retracting her undertaking is that the Banking Court is fully empowered to proceed with the execution of the decree and the sale of the mortgaged property. The Court clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to pursue any future legal remedies against orders passed in execution proceedings in accordance with law, and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment debtor can challenge a final recovery decree during execution proceedings after failing to file an appeal against it?
  • Can a party contract out of seeking legal remedies provided by law?
  • What are the consequences when a judgment debtor backs out of an undertaking given before the executing court to pay the decretal amount in installments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hanan alias Abdul Manan Versus Haji Muhammad Akram Peracha2004 SCMR 1696 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Gohar Riaz2004 SCMR 1662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil serviceprobationary periodmajor penaltyregularization of servicedepartmental inquiryad hoc appointmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, a civil servant, into service. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent’s initial appointment was regular or ad hoc, and whether the department could unilaterally terminate his services on the grounds of alleged procedural irregularities in his appointment and misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s appointment was regular, evidenced by his placement on probation and inclusion in the seniority list of permanent employees. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the department could not benefit from its own procedural lapses or alleged irregularities to terminate a civil servant who otherwise possessed the requisite qualifications. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that when imposing a major penalty for misconduct under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the department is legally obligated to conduct a full-fledged inquiry as mandated by the statute. The failure to conduct such an inquiry renders the penalty unsustainable, and the department cannot retrospectively claim an appointment was illegal to justify summary removal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department terminate a civil servant's employment based on alleged procedural irregularities in the initial appointment process if the department itself was responsible for those irregularities?
  • Is a full-fledged inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the placement of an appointee on probation indicate a regular appointment rather than an ad hoc one under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can a department rely on a seniority list to establish the regular status of an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Aziz-Ur-Rehman Versus Ahmad Khan2004 SCMR 1622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pecuniary jurisdictionappellate jurisdictiontransfer of appealcivil procedurejurisdiction by consent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, which was dismissed by the trial court, leading to an appeal before the High Court. The core legal question was whether a change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of appellate courts during the pendency of an appeal divests the High Court of its jurisdiction and requires the transfer of the matter to the District Court. The Supreme Court held that upon the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, the High Court stood deprived of the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and was bound to transmit it to the District Court. The Court laid down the key principle that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court not otherwise vested with it merely through the consent or omission of the parties to raise an objection.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Court during the pendency of an appeal divest the High Court of its jurisdiction to hear the matter?
  • Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court that is not otherwise vested with it through the consent or omission of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Versus The State2004 SCMR 1618 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Waheed Ullah Versus Mst. Rehana Nasim2004 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ejectment petitionrent restrictionlandlord and tenant relationshiporal agreement of salestriking off defencesummary proceedingsrent deposit order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is required to frame an issue and record findings regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before ordering the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, specifically when the tenant claims an oral agreement of sale. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted correctly in ordering the deposit of rent despite the petitioner's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship based on an alleged oral agreement of sale. The Court reasoned that proceedings before a Rent Controller are summary in nature, and a mere assertion of an oral agreement of sale does not absolve a tenant from complying with rent deposit orders. The principle laid down is that a tenant must comply with rent deposit orders to qualify for a hearing on their defense, and such orders are necessary to safeguard the landlord's interests during pending litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before ordering the deposit of rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does an alleged oral agreement of sale exempt a tenant from complying with a Rent Controller's order to deposit arrears of rent?
  • Can a tenant be heard in support of their defense if they fail to comply with a Rent Controller's order for the deposit of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Central Cotton Mills Ltd. Versus Habib Bank Limited2004 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  winding upcommercial insolvencystatutory noticerecovery suitcompany lawliquidator
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a winding-up order passed by a Company Judge of the High Court of Sindh against the appellant-company on the petition of the respondent-bank. The respondent-bank had extended credit facilities to the appellant-company, which subsequently defaulted on its outstanding liabilities. After serving a statutory notice under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, the bank petitioned for winding up. The appellant-company contested the petition, arguing that civil suits for recovery and damages were already pending, that a subsequent notice superseded the statutory notice, and that its assets exceeded its liabilities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that the pendency of civil recovery suits is no bar to winding-up proceedings unless filed in bad faith. The Court laid down that a company's commercial insolvency is the primary test for winding up; even if a company possesses assets exceeding its liabilities, it may be wound up if it is not in a running condition, is commercially unviable, and is unable to meet its current debts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pendency of a civil suit for recovery of money bars a creditor from filing a petition for the winding up of a debtor company?
  • Does a subsequent demand notice for partial adjustment of debt through pledged goods supersede a prior statutory notice issued under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Can a company be deemed commercially insolvent and wound up if it is non-functional, even if its total assets exceed its liabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Fida Hussain2004 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  compulsory retirementright of hearingnatural justiceaudi alteram partemdepartmental remediesservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondent under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The petitioner contended that the respondent was not entitled to a show cause notice or a right of hearing under the said provision, and further argued that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was incompetent for failing to exhaust departmental remedies under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employee has an inalienable right of hearing based on the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem), which cannot be denied merely because a statutory provision does not explicitly require assigning reasons for retirement. The Court further held that since no departmental appeal or review is provided under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, the non-filing of a departmental appeal does not bar an aggrieved employee from approaching the Federal Service Tribunal. Leave to appeal was consequently declined.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee compulsorily retired under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 is entitled to a show cause notice and a right of hearing?
  • Does the absence of an explicit statutory provision for assigning reasons in Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 exclude the application of the principles of natural justice?
  • Is exhausting departmental remedies a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal when no appeal, review, or representation is provided under the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →