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.

• State Bank of Pakistan Versus Khyber Zaman and others2004 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Golden Handshake SchemeBenevolent Fund Grantretrospective effectService Tribunalvoluntary retirementfinal settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  The State Bank of Pakistan filed petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondents' appeals. The respondents, former employees of the State Bank of Pakistan, had opted for the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme floated on 23-10-1997 and were relieved from service. Subsequently, the Bank issued Circular No. 20 on 7-11-2000 increasing the monthly Benevolent Fund Grant for employees. The respondents claimed the benefit of this increased grant. The core legal question was whether employees who retired under the Golden Handshake Scheme were entitled to subsequent enhancements in the Benevolent Fund Grant under Circular No. 20, or if the lump sum payment received under the scheme was in full and final settlement. The Supreme Court held that the Golden Handshake Scheme was voluntary and contractual, and the lump sum Benevolent Fund Grant equivalent to ten years was received as a final settlement in lieu of monthly grants. The Court ruled that Circular No. 20 could not be applied retrospectively to employees who had already retired, and that employees could not claim both the scheme benefits and subsequent rule enhancements. The appeals were accepted and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees who opted for a voluntary golden handshake scheme are entitled to subsequent enhancements in benevolent fund grants introduced by circulars issued after their retirement?
  • Does the acceptance of a lump sum benevolent fund grant under a golden handshake scheme extinguish the right to claim monthly benevolent fund grants under existing rules?
  • Whether an administrative circular can be applied retrospectively to grant benefits to persons who were no longer in service at the time of its issuance?
  • Whether a claim for double benefits under a voluntary retirement scheme and normal service rules is maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Din alias Taj Muhammad Versus Province of the Punjab through Collector, Rahimyar Khan2004 SCMR 1411 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and others Versus Amanat Ali2004 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationforgerydiscretionary jurisdictioncriminal procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners were accused of forging an agreement to sell land belonging to the complainant, leading to charges under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was neither perverse, capricious, nor arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail differ significantly from post-arrest bail. Finding that the allegations were of a serious nature and that a charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioners, the Court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were taken into custody, affirming that the High Court's discretionary exercise of jurisdiction was sound and did not warrant interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail differ from the criteria for post-arrest bail?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary order regarding bail cancellation?
  • Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest bail when a charge-sheet has been filed against them for serious allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad Versus The State2004 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  drug traffickingnarcotics recoveryjudicial confessiondestruction of narcoticspolice witnessesleave to appealanti narcotics force
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction and death sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 for drug trafficking. The core legal questions involved the legality of the conviction based on recoveries made during a raid, the non-production of the contraband narcotics at the trial due to prior lawful destruction under court orders, the compliance of the judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the non-association of private persons under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and circumstantial evidence, that police and ANF officials are competent witnesses, and that the destruction of narcotics during trial under valid orders does not vitiate the proceedings if no timely objection was raised. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the destruction of narcotics during trial pursuant to court orders under Section 516 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates the trial if the contraband is not physically produced?
  • Are police and Anti-Narcotics Force officials considered competent witnesses whose testimony can form the basis of a conviction without independent private corroboration?
  • Whether the non-association of private witnesses in a recovery process under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 renders the recovery inadmissible?
  • Whether a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 can be relied upon when found to be in accordance with law and High Court Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majeeda and others Versus Mst. Ghulam Aisha and others2004 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus The State2004 SCMR 1348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Review petitionJuvenile justiceDeath penaltyAge determinationCriminal appealScope of review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, challenging the Supreme Court's earlier dismissal of his criminal appeals against a conviction and death sentence. The primary legal question was whether the petitioner could successfully claim the status of a minor at the time of the offense to avoid the death penalty, relying on a birth certificate, despite having previously stated his age as an adult in earlier judicial proceedings. The Court held that the review petition was meritless, noting that the petitioner's claim of minority was not raised before the trial or high courts and was contradicted by irrefutable evidence on record, including the petitioner's own statements recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reaffirmed that the scope of review jurisdiction does not extend to the rehearing of matters already decided on merits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference with the original judgment, which had correctly assessed the evidence regarding the petitioner's age and the validity of the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be utilized for the rehearing of a matter already decided on its merits?
  • Is a statement made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding their age considered valid evidence of their majority?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 apply to an accused who failed to raise the plea of minority before the trial and appellate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Majid Versus Sadaqat Saeed Malik and others2004 SCMR 1325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-20Read full judgment →
• Genertech Pakistan Ltd. and others Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan, Lahore and others2004 SCMR 1319 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and others Versus Muhammad Qasim and others2004 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-02
  arbitrationreference to refereeQanun-e-Shahadatpartition suitarbitration awardobjections to awardlocal commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment dismissing civil revisions regarding a partition suit. The core legal question was whether the appointment of an advocate to resolve the dispute between the parties constituted a reference to a referee under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, or an arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1940. The Supreme Court held that the appointment, which required the advocate to hear the parties and render a complete decision, amounted to arbitration rather than a mere reference for information. The Court clarified that a referee under Article 33 acts as a witness providing information, whereas an arbitrator is tasked with adjudicating the dispute. Consequently, the decision rendered by the advocate was an award, and a decree could not be passed thereon without providing the parties an opportunity to file objections as required by the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case to the trial court to invite objections to the award.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to have a third party decide a dispute after hearing the parties constitute a reference to a referee under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a person appointed to decide a dispute after hearing the parties and rendering a judgment an arbitrator or a referee?
  • Can a court pass a decree based on an arbitrator's decision without allowing the parties an opportunity to file objections?
  • Does the appointment of a person to decide a dispute fall under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as a local commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumlikat Begum Versus Malik Nasrullah2004 SCMR 1290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ramna Pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Limited Versus Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines (Pvt.) and others2004 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  constitutional petitionjudicial reviewcontractual obligationspublic interesttender processsales tax liabilityindoor management
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses appeals arising from a Lahore High Court decision concerning a commercial contract entered into by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines (Pvt.) Ltd. (SNGPL), a public limited company, for the supply of steel line pipes. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against contractual obligations, the competence of the High Court to examine and set aside parts of a commercial contract as ultra vires, and whether such judicial review constitutes improper interference in the indoor management or corporate veil of the company. The Supreme Court held that contracts concluded by State functionaries or entities carrying elements of public interest are open to judicial review to ensure transparency, fairness, and reasonableness. The Court found that SNGPL's decision to arbitrarily assume the sales tax liability of the supplier after the bid opening violated the tender terms and was legally flawed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the power of the High Court to exercise judicial review over public-element contracts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable before the High Court in relation to contractual obligations undertaken by a public sector company?
  • Is a contract carrying elements of public interest concluded by State functionaries open to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the High Court exceeds its jurisdiction by examining and invalidating a portion of a commercial contract that unfairly shifts tax burdens contrary to tender terms?
  • Does the doctrine of judicial review of public-element contracts amount to unwarranted interference in the indoor management of a corporate entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Yameen Khan Versus Ashrat Ali Khan and others2004 SCMR 1270 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Anwar Khan Versus Abdul Manaf2004 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  rent evictionfamily settlementlocus standico-ownerregistration of documentslandlord and tenantpersonal bona fide need
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order remanding a rent case to the Rent Controller for determining the landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions concerned whether a family partition agreement required registration to be admissible and whether a co-owner possessed the locus standi to initiate eviction proceedings without the consent of other co-owners. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that family arrangements are not compulsorily registrable and are admissible in evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a co-owner has the legal standing to file an eviction application independently, as the primary issue in such proceedings is the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, not the internal title disputes among co-owners. The Court emphasized that a tenant lacks the legal standing to challenge the partition of property among co-owners, as such arrangements do not alter the tenant's status or obligations. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to remand the matter for a factual determination of the landlord's personal need was upheld as legally sound and unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a family settlement or partition agreement require registration to be admissible in evidence?
  • Does a co-owner have the locus standi to file an eviction application against a tenant without the consent of other co-owners?
  • Can a tenant challenge the validity of a partition or family settlement between co-owners of the rented premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Versus Ibrahim2004 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Malik Safdar Ali Khan and another Versus Public-at-Large and others2004 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman Versus Waseem Iqbal and 5 others2004 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  acquittalcircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionrecoveryleave to appealcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted respondents previously convicted of murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal, based on the rejection of circumstantial evidence—specifically an extra-judicial confession and the recovery of stolen property—was perverse or legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, finding the alleged extra-judicial confession inherently improbable as the witness lacked the status to command such a disclosure. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovered gold ornaments were common items, were not properly identified in accordance with legal requirements, and were not exhibited during the trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had applied its conscious mind to the evidence and reached a justifiable conclusion. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the High Court's reasoning is perverse, artificial, or unsupported by the record, as the standards for reviewing acquittals differ significantly from those for reviewing convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the High Court has applied its conscious mind to the evidence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession credible when made to a person lacking a commanding position?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the recovery of common items that were not properly identified or exhibited during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa Khan and another Versus Dr. Gohar Ijaz Khan and others2004 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-04Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hassan Gurchani Versus Sajjad Haider Khan2004 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  bail cancellationsuspension of sentencespecial courtsuppression of terrorist activitieshardshipcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court suspending the sentence of the respondent on merits and granting him bail under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of his criminal appeal against conviction under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the High Court could suspend a sentence and grant bail under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. in the face of the express ouster clause under section 7(1) of the 1975 Act excluding section 426, Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that while section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be invoked, it is strictly restricted to exceptional cases of extreme hardship, such as prolonged pendency of the appeal or severe life-threatening illness, and not on the merits of the case. The Court set aside the impugned order and cancelled the respondent's bail, establishing that merits alone do not justify bypassing the statutory exclusion of bail pending appeal under special laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can suspend a sentence and grant bail under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when section 426 of the Code is excluded by special legislation?
  • Can the merits of a criminal appeal serve as a valid ground for suspending a sentence under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes exceptional hardship warranting the invocation of section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for granting bail to a convicted person?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain and others Versus The State2004 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-04-14
  acquittal appealocular evidencechance witnessdouble presumption of innocenceindependent corroborationsifting grain from chaffdelayed FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that reversed a trial court’s acquittal of the appellants for murder. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court’s interference with an acquittal order and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in overturning the acquittal without cogent reasons or addressing the trial court's findings. The Court emphasized that an accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence upon acquittal, and appellate interference requires establishing that the trial court disregarded material evidence or misread it. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that when ocular testimony is rejected against some accused, it cannot be used to convict others without independent corroboration on material particulars. Finding the FIR delayed, the ocular evidence unreliable, and the recovery of incriminating articles suspicious, the Court set aside the conviction and restored the acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal administration, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and appellate courts must exercise extreme caution when disturbing an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does the rejection of ocular testimony against some accused necessitate independent corroboration to convict other accused in the same trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an FIR registered after preliminary investigation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of the alleged crime weapon is contradicted by prosecution evidence regarding the date of arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Maroof Knitwear (Pvt.) Limited Versus Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited2004 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Zulqarnain Versus Surbuland Khan2004 SCMR 1084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performancenovation of contractagreement to sellrescission of contractbona fide purchasercontract enforcement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a High Court judgment that had dismissed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, citing novation of the contract. The core legal question was whether the execution of subsequent, unfinalized, and legally flawed documents constituted a novation of the original agreement to sell under Section 62 of the Contract Act 1872, thereby extinguishing the original contract. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the subsequent documents did not validly substitute or rescind the original agreement. The Court found that the new documents were not finalized, lacked necessary registration, and were legally defective, thus failing to meet the requirements for novation. The Court laid down the principle that for novation to occur, the parties must validly substitute the original contract with a new, enforceable one; failed negotiations or legally deficient documents do not extinguish the original cause of action, and Section 62 of the Contract Act 1872 is inapplicable where the alleged new agreement is not a valid, binding contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does the execution of legally flawed or unfinalized documents constitute a novation of a contract under Section 62 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a party rely on Section 62 of the Contract Act 1872 to claim novation if the alleged new agreement is not a valid, enforceable contract?
  • Does the failure to register a document requiring compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908 prevent it from operating as a novation of an earlier contract?
  • Is a contract novated if the subsequent negotiations to substitute it fail to reach a finalized agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair Versus Mian Muhammad Zia2004 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Versus Khuda Dad Khan2004 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Ghulam Ali2004 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  inheritance disputerevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidenceMuslim Family Laws Ordinancepredeceased daughterleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts in an inheritance dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, could reverse concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of a predeceased daughter to the deceased, and whether the respondent was entitled to inherit under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction, as the lower courts had committed material irregularities by misreading and ignoring critical evidence, including testimony and documentary records. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact are not sacrosanct when they suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, justifying interference in revision. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, children of a predeceased daughter are entitled to inherit from the estate of their maternal grandfather. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal flaw in the High Court’s decision to reverse the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if the lower courts have misread or ignored evidence?
  • Are the children of a predeceased daughter entitled to inherit from the estate of their maternal grandfather under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Does the existence of a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts preclude the High Court from correcting material irregularities in the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Versus The State2003 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-08
  leave to appealmurder convictiondeath sentenceself-defensesudden quarrelocular evidencecorroborationintention to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted for the murder of Abdul Jabbar and injuring Muhammad Gulzar. The core legal questions revolved around the defense claims of self-defense and a sudden quarrel, challenging the premeditated nature of the offense. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that the circumstances did not convincingly support self-defense or a sudden quarrel, noting the petitioner's possession of a Chhurri and the sensitive location of the fatal injury. The intention to commit murder was inferred from the selection of the injury's seat, and minor injuries on the petitioner were attributed to scuffling during escape, not aggression from the empty-handed victims. The ocular account, corroborated by the petitioner's admission of the occurrence, was deemed unimpeachable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the intention to commit murder be inferred from the selection of the seat of injury?
  • Are minor injuries on an accused sufficient to establish a claim of self-defense against empty-handed victims?
  • Does an accused's admission of an occurrence, even with a different version, corroborate eyewitness testimony?
  • What constitutes a 'sudden quarrel' in the context of murder, and how does it impact the quantum of sentence?
  • When is a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, considered unexceptionable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus The State2003 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-21
  suspension of sentencelife imprisonmentappraisal of evidencecriminal proceduresupreme court review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court, wherein the petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to suspend the sentence on the ground that considering the petitioner's contentions would involve a deeper appraisal of evidence, which is impermissible at the stage of suspension of sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in declining the prayer for suspension of sentence was based on relevant and valid considerations, and thus warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that a deeper appraisal of evidence is not permissible when deciding an application for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the appellate court's valid exercise of discretion in this regard will not be disturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a deeper appraisal of evidence is permissible while deciding an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion to decline the suspension of a sentence when based on relevant and valid considerations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus The State2003 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-12
  Qatl-i-AmdTazirQisasDiyatWata SattaInterested witnessLeave to appealSudden provocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the Qatl-i-Amd of his wife. The petitioner contended that the testimony of the deceased's father and relatives was unreliable due to their interest and argued that the sentence should be mitigated under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, claiming the incident involved sudden provocation. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, finding the ocular account of the witnesses credible and corroborated by the recovery of the weapon and medical evidence. Crucially, the Court held that the provisions of Sections 306, 307, and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which govern cases liable to Qisas, are inapplicable to convictions for Qatl-i-Amd punished as Tazir under Section 302(b) or (c). Consequently, an offender sentenced under Tazir cannot claim the benefit of Section 308. Finding no evidence of sudden provocation and noting the brutal nature of the crime, the Court maintained the conviction and sentence, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provisions of Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied to a sentence of Qatl-i-Amd awarded as Tazir under Section 302(b) or (c)?
  • Are the exceptions regarding Qisas provided in Sections 306 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to cases of Tazir?
  • Does the status of a witness as a close relative of the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus Jan Muhammad2003 SCMR 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-26
  pre-emptionevacuee landsettlement feeconfirmed allotteesupreme courtleave refused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a suit of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the sale of evacuee land by a confirmed allottee who had not yet paid the settlement fee to the Federal Government is subject to pre-emption. The Supreme Court held, following the precedent in Haji Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 1973 SC 347, that the sale of land by a confirmed allottee of evacuee land is pre-emptible, and the issue of unpaid settlement fees is strictly a matter between the allottee and the Federal Government, thus leaving the vendee subject to the pre-emption suit. The petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that a transaction involving evacuee land purchased from a confirmed allottee is amenable to pre-emption regardless of the pending settlement fee owed to the government by the allottee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sale of evacuee land by a confirmed allottee who has not paid the settlement fee is pre-emptible?
  • Does the non-payment of a settlement fee to the Federal Government by an allottee render the purchased land immune from a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Javed Versus The State2003 SCMR 735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-03
  Criminal ProcedureDiyatSentence ModificationSupreme Court of PakistanInstalment Payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court regarding criminal conviction and sentence. The core legal question concerns the appropriateness of the sentence and the mode of payment of the Diyat amount imposed on the convict. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the merits of the impugned judgment, holding that the sentence already undergone was adequate and the Diyat amount of Rs. 2,60,000 was correctly maintained. However, taking a lenient view of the petitioner's poverty, the Court modified the payment schedule, allowing the Diyat amount to be paid over a period of three years in equal monthly instalments instead of the original three instalments. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may exercise leniency in modifying the payment terms of financial obligations such as Diyat based on the demonstrated financial hardship of a convicted person.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court modify the schedule of payment for Diyat on the ground of the petitioner's poverty?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the merits of a concurrent finding regarding sentence and Diyat when the sentence undergone is considered adequate?
  Read full judgment →
• Ussama Tariq Versus Administrator(Residualproperties)/Additional Ommissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division, Lahore2003 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-09Read full judgment →
• Kata Mir Versus Mst. SHO Begum2003 SCMR 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-17
  novation of mortgageredemption of mortgagelimitation periodownership by prescriptionmutation entrymortgagee rights
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding a dispute over land ownership and redemption of a mortgage dating back to 1903/1904. The core legal question was whether subsequent mutation entries attested in 1926 amounted to a novation of the original mortgage agreement, thereby resetting the limitation period for redemption, or merely created an additional monetary charge on the property without altering the original status. The Supreme Court held that the mutation entries did not amount to a novation of contract, reaffirming that creating an additional charge or securing a nominal additional amount does not change the nature of the previous mortgage or extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that mutation entries reflecting an additional charge ('Azadi-Zar-Rehan') without actual redemption and execution of a new mortgage do not novate the original contract, and failure of the mortgagor to redeem within the statutory period extinguishes their rights, allowing the mortgagee to acquire ownership by prescription.

  Questions settled

  • Does the attestation of a mutation creating an additional monetary charge on a mortgaged property amount to a novation of the original mortgage contract?
  • Can parties to a mortgage contract reduce the statutory period of limitation for redemption at their convenience?
  • Does the failure of a mortgagor to file a suit for redemption within the prescribed period result in the loss of proprietary rights and the acquisition of ownership by the mortgagee through prescription?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Muhammad Versus Qamar Iqbal2003 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-22
  double jeopardycriminal revisionsentence calculationconstitutional protectionretrialsubstantial sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision filed by the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an accused person, having already served a substantial and legal sentence for a specific offence, could be subjected to a further sentence for the same offence. The respondents had previously been sentenced to death by a Military Court, remained in custody for several years, and were subsequently retried and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Sessions Judge, receiving the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that once an accused has fully served the substantial and legal sentence for an offence, they cannot be awarded another sentence for that same offence. The Court affirmed that imposing such a subsequent sentence would be unfair, unjust, and a violation of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that an individual cannot be punished twice for the same act.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be awarded a second sentence for the same offence after having already served a substantial and legal sentence for it?
  • Does the imposition of a subsequent sentence for an offence already served violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Versus Karachi Development Authority2003 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-22
  original jurisdictionstatutory bodylocal authoritybody corporatetemporary injunctioncivil jurisdictionfederal-provincial disputeKarachi Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that vacated a temporary injunction granted to Pakistan Railways against the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The High Court had ruled that the KDA was a department of the Provincial Government, meaning any dispute between it and the Federal Government fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 184(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that the KDA, established as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, constitutes a 'local authority' distinct from the Provincial Government. The Court reasoned that despite government supervision or powers of dissolution, a statutory body remains a separate legal entity and its disputes do not constitute conflicts between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that the Civil Court retained jurisdiction, and restored the temporary injunctions granted by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Karachi Development Authority a department of the Provincial Government?
  • Does a dispute between the Federal Government and a statutory body like the Karachi Development Authority fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(1) of the Constitution?
  • Can a statutory body with perpetual succession and a common seal be considered a department of the government for the purpose of ousting civil court jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Versus The State2003 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-24
  murderconvictionleave to appealocular testimonynatural witnessesmotivebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner, Abid Hussain, for the murder of Zafar Hussain. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular and circumstantial evidence, specifically the credibility of eye-witnesses and the establishment of motive in a daylight murder case occurring near a court complex. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through natural and independent eye-witnesses whose presence was verified, and a well-established motive relating to a dispute over the Mutwaliship of a shrine. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts as to the petitioner's guilt under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses present near a court complex at the time of the occurrence can be relied upon as natural and independent?
  • Does the pendency of a civil dispute regarding the Mutwaliship of a shrine constitute sufficient motive for a murder?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding a conviction under section 302(b) warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Versus The State2003 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-21
  murderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealcompensationsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the appellant's conviction and death sentence for the murder of Muhammad Anees and the murderous assault on Umer Farooq under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account in light of alleged discrepancies with medical evidence regarding firing distance and the validity of the sentencing. The Supreme Court found that while the ocular evidence sufficiently established the appellant's guilt, the circumstances surrounding the deceased's injury—who appeared to be an unintended victim caught in the crossfire—rendered the immediate cause of the incident unclear. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, noting that the death penalty was not warranted given the ambiguous circumstances. Additionally, the Court corrected the trial court's sentencing error by invoking section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to award compensation to the legal heirs, replacing the previously imposed illegal fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular account regarding firing distance necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the immediate cause of the crime remains shrouded in mystery?
  • Is the imposition of a fine by a trial court legal without invoking the specific provisions of Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Versus The State2003 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  quantum of sentencepartial compromiseTazirQisasmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant sought mitigation of his sentence on two primary grounds: first, that a partial compromise had been reached with the husband of the deceased, and second, that a co-accused had been acquitted, suggesting the appellant should not be solely held responsible. The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. Regarding the compromise, the Court noted that the conviction was under Tazir (Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860) rather than Qisas, and the evidentiary requirements for Qisas, such as Tazkiyah-al-Shahood, were not met. Regarding the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court held that the acquittal of another party based on valid trial findings does not automatically entitle the appellant to a reduction in sentence, particularly when the appellant was found solely responsible for the fatal injuries. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for leniency and dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused provide a valid ground for the mitigation of a sentence for the remaining accused?
  • Can a partial compromise with one legal heir of the deceased lead to the mitigation of a sentence imposed under Tazir?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to the same compromise rules as a conviction under Section 302(a)?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman Versus The Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue2003 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-16Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali Versus Senior Post Master (Dely), Islamabad G.P.O., Islamabad2003 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-19Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Khan Versus Muhammad Farid Khan2003 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-01Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Versus Director-General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad2003 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-08
  service senioritycivil servantappointment by transferfresh cause of actionseniority listpermanent absorptionservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the seniority of a civil servant who was initially transferred to the Office of the Postmaster General, Rawalpindi, in 1978 and later permanently absorbed in 1985. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge to a 1999 seniority list, ruling that his failure to contest an earlier 1987 list precluded his claim. The core legal questions were whether the appellant’s seniority should be reckoned from his date of transfer or his date of permanent absorption, and whether the publication of a fresh seniority list provides a new cause of action. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, seniority for a civil servant appointed by transfer is reckoned from the date of regular appointment or transfer, not the subsequent date of absorption. Furthermore, the Court established that the publication of a new seniority list creates a fresh cause of action, rendering the appeal maintainable despite the appellant's failure to challenge the previous list. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the publication of a new seniority list provide a fresh cause of action for a civil servant to challenge their seniority ranking?
  • From what date should the seniority of a civil servant appointed by transfer be reckoned under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993?
  • Does the permanent absorption of a civil servant into a new department reset the date from which their seniority is calculated?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh Versus Gul Muhammad Hajano2003 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-17Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Versus Yasir Arafat2003 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Versus The State2003 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Supardaginarcoticstemporary custodyinvestigation irregularitymiscarriage of justiceControl of Narcotic Substances Actvehicle seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order refusing the release of a vehicle on 'Supardagi' (temporary custody) in a narcotics case. The petitioner, claiming ownership of a vehicle seized with 57 kilograms of Charas, sought its release pending trial. The core legal questions were whether a vehicle involved in narcotics transportation could be released on 'Supardagi' during trial, and whether an investigation conducted by an officer lacking proper authorization vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while courts possess inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief if the owner prima facie establishes a lack of knowledge regarding the narcotics, the petitioner failed to provide such material. Furthermore, the Court held that procedural irregularities in an investigation, such as a lack of officer authorization, do not automatically vitiate a trial unless they result in serious prejudice or a miscarriage of justice, as such defects are curable under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that temporary release is not a right where the owner fails to establish the requisite lack of knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in a narcotics case be released on 'Supardagi' during the pendency of the trial?
  • Does an investigation conducted by a police officer lacking statutory authorization automatically vitiate the trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a court grant temporary custody of a vehicle seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is an irregularity in the investigation of a criminal case curable if it causes no prejudice to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul Versus The State2003 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-11
  post-arrest bailbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRabductiontentative assessmentcriminal leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the criminal bail application of the petitioner. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving offences under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, the Arms Ordinance 1965, the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the delay in lodging the FIR, the delayed recording of statements of the alleged abductees, and the absence of medical evidence. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the cumulative effect of the delayed statements of the victims, the absence of medical corroboration for injuries, and the unexplained delay in reporting created a prima facie case for further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case can be extended to an accused person even at the pre-trial bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unexplained delay in recording the statements of recovered abductees under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt arising from a lack of medical evidence to support alleged injuries be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be converted into an appeal and allowed when tentative assessment reveals holes in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh Versus Shah Nawaz2003 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-02-21
  bail cancellationjudicial discretionmiscarriage of justicecriminal procedureappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, regarding the grant of bail to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion in granting bail in a manner consistent with judicial norms, particularly in light of serious allegations supported by the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and a Chemical Examiner's report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was laconic, capricious, and arbitrary, failing to consider relevant circumstances and evidence, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, converted the petitions into appeals, and ordered the immediate arrest of the respondents. The key principle laid down is that while the Supreme Court does not ordinarily disturb a High Court's tentative opinion on bail, it will intervene when the discretion has been exercised without diligent application of mind, ignoring cogent evidence, or in a manner that constitutes a serious miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail if the discretion was exercised in a capricious and arbitrary manner?
  • Does the failure of the High Court to consider medical evidence and a Chemical Examiner's report in a bail matter constitute a ground for interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a laconic order granting bail by the High Court sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh Versus Qamar Ud Din2003 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Bibi Versus Ilam Din2003 SCMR 1843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-19Read full judgment →
• Munir A. Sheikh, J Sh. Muhammad Hanif Versus Fahmida Sultana2003 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Muhammad Versus Rajada2003 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Versus The State2003 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-12
  corruptionforgerypublic servantleave to appealsentencingmisuse of official positioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's criminal appeal against his conviction for corruption and forgery while serving as a Revenue Patwari. The petitioner, a public servant, was accused of misusing his official position by issuing forged certificates to ineligible individuals, falsely claiming they were affectees of the Chashma Atomic Research Centre, thereby facilitating illegal land allotments and securing personal benefits. The trial court convicted the petitioner under sections 167 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, imposing sentences of rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences on compassionate grounds due to the petitioner's age and retirement status. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, finding that the prosecution had successfully established the charges through both oral and documentary proof. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no grounds existed for further interference with the sentences, as the petitioner had already received leniency, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant be convicted for issuing forged certificates to facilitate illegal land allotments?
  • Does the appellate court have the discretion to reduce sentences based on the age and retirement status of the convict?
  • Is leave to appeal warranted when the prosecution has proven charges through oral and documentary evidence and the High Court has already granted leniency?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus The State2003 SCMR 1697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-19
  post-arrest bailrecovery of weaponfurther inquirycriminal liabilitybail refusalF.I.R. delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a post-arrest bail application by the High Court. The petitioner was accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 379, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an incident involving the shooting of an eleven-year-old girl. The petitioner argued that his implication occurred ten days after the initial registration of the F.I.R., casting doubt on the prosecution's case, and contended that the existence of conflicting versions warranted the principle of further inquiry. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that an incriminating weapon (a pistol) was recovered from the petitioner and that the investigation had been completed with a challan submitted to the trial court. Consequently, the Court held that given the specific locale of the injury and the recovery of the weapon, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that recovery of incriminating evidence and the nature of the injury are critical factors in bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of an incriminating weapon from an accused justify the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the principle of further inquiry automatically applicable merely because of a delay in naming an accused in the F.I.R.?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed based on the locale of the injury and the recovery of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameela Kausar Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education2003 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-09
  unfair meansexamination malpracticedisciplinary proceedingsfraud and forgerymedical college admissionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Jamila Kausar filed a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of her writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld her disqualification from the Autumn 1992 F.Sc. examination by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, for using unfair means. The core legal question was whether a candidate who committed fraud and forgery in examination answer books could avoid disqualification and disciplinary action on the ground of having progressed in medical studies due to interim court orders. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that fraud cannot be condoned by courts and that a wrongdoer cannot reap the benefit of their own illegal actions or advanced academic stage. The key principle laid down is that courts will not take a lenient view or allow equities in favor of a petitioner whose academic advancement is the direct result of their own established fraud and forgery in educational examinations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate found guilty of fraud and forgery in examination answer books can be granted relief on the ground of advancement in medical studies?
  • Can courts condone examination malpractice and foul play to protect a student's academic career?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated by an educational board for use of unfair means warrant interference when supported by tamper-evident record?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz Versus Haji Muhammad Iqbal2003 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-05
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantrent arrearsexecution of ordersrent controller jurisdictionarbitration award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner, Rabnawaz, in favor of the respondent, Haji Muhammad Iqbal. The core legal questions were whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties and whether the Rent Controller possessed the jurisdiction to determine arrears of rent and order payment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s own previous civil suit and the testimony of a witness confirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, thereby justifying the ejectment order based on default. Regarding the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, the Court held that under the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Controller is authorized to determine the amount of rent due and direct its payment. The Court further clarified that orders passed under section 13 or section 15 of the Ordinance are executable by a Civil Court as if they were a decree of that Court, distinguishing the execution procedure in N.-W.F.P. from that in Punjab.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to finally determine the amount of rent due from a tenant?
  • Are orders passed by a Rent Controller or an appellate authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 executable as a decree of a Civil Court in N.-W.F.P.?
  • Can a party deny the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when their own previous pleadings and admissions establish it?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed Versus The State2003 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-02
  supplementary statementfirst information reportretracted confessionpolice torturechance witnessrecoverysection 342 statementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's wife. The core legal question concerns the reliability of a supplementary statement that introduced a completely new version of events implicating the appellants after an initial First Information Report (FIR) had named unknown persons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to prove its case because the supplementary statement was the result of afterthought and prolonged illegal detention during which the accused were tortured, and the initial FIR, supported by the circumstances and the accused persons' statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, represented the true state of affairs. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution fails to establish its case and introduces a belated, unreliable supplementary statement contradicting the prompt FIR, the exculpatory or corroborative version presented by the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted, and retracted confessions obtained after prolonged detention without material corroboration cannot form the basis of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement recorded during investigation that contradicts the initial First Information Report?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction without independent material corroboration?
  • Does prolonged police custody prior to the recording of a confessional statement cast doubt on its voluntariness?
  • How should a court handle a criminal case where the prosecution introduces two mutually destructive versions of the incident?
  • Are recoveries of incriminating articles admissible when statutory provisions regarding independent search witnesses are violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Versus The State2003 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-21
  murderappreciation of evidencesuicide attemptmedical jurisprudenceconflicting versionsbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of Mst. Shagufta Parveen, alongside convictions under sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(vi). The core legal questions involved the credibility of the two conflicting versions of the occurrence, the nature of the gunshot injury sustained by the appellant (whether homicidal or suicidal), and the existence of a viable motive. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's version was demolished by medical and circumstantial evidence, noting that the appellant lacked a motive to kill the deceased, that his chest injury was a distant shot rather than self-inflicted, and that independent witness testimony supported the defense version that the complainant party caused the fatal injuries. The appeal was consequently accepted, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an injury sustained by an accused can be categorized as self-inflicted or suicidal in the absence of contact-shot characteristics such as charring, blackening, and tattooing?
  • Whether the testimony of a witness who supports the defense in cross-examination can be discarded solely on that ground when corroborated by surrounding circumstances?
  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when medical and ballistic evidence contradicts the prosecution's narrative regarding the weapon's capacity and firing distance?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Versus Election Tribunal, Sialkot2003 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-16Read full judgment →
• Bhag Bhari Versus Ghulam Rasool2003 SCMR 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Versus Muhammad Anwar2003 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore2003 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Versus Muhammad Naeem2003 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-11
  transfer of casefamily caseconstitutional jurisdictionSupreme Court powersinter-provincial transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Registrar of the Supreme Court returning as not maintainable a petition filed under Article 186-A of the Constitution seeking the transfer of a family case from a Family Court in Hyderabad to a Family Court in Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court possesses the power under Article 186-A of the Constitution to transfer a case pending in a court subordinate to a High Court in one province to a court subordinate to a High Court in another province. The Court held that Article 186-A vests the Supreme Court with the power to transfer a case pending before one High Court to another High Court, but not a case between courts subordinate to different High Courts across provinces. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless, while the Court recommended that the Federal and Provincial Governments amend the Civil Procedure Code and family laws to address the hardship faced by women when frivolous suits are filed in different provinces.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the power under Article 186-A of the Constitution to transfer a case from a court subordinate to a High Court in one province to a court subordinate to a High Court in another province?
  • Is a petition filed under Article 186-A of the Constitution for the transfer of a family case between different provinces maintainable before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Versus The State2003 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-03-06
  jail petitioncompromiseQisas and DiyatTa'zirpartial compromisemurderdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the petitioner, Riaz Ahmad, for murder. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner sought to rely on a partial compromise wherein some legal heirs (widow and one daughter) waived their right of Qisas, while the mother and another daughter refused to compound the offence. The core legal question was whether a partial compromise by some legal heirs is sufficient to commute a sentence of death awarded under Ta'zir. The Supreme Court held that where a convict has been sentenced to death under Ta'zir rather than Qisas, a composition or waiver by only some of the legal heirs is impermissible, and no compromise can be allowed unless all legal heirs of the deceased enter into a compromise. The petition for compromise was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a partial compromise by some legal heirs is sufficient to commute a sentence of death awarded under Ta'zir?
  • Can an offence be compounded under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the consent of all legal heirs of the victim?
  • What is the effect of a conviction under Ta'zir regarding the waiver of Qisas by only a section of the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus The State2003 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-14
  narcoticslesser punishmentchange of lawrecovery from personpublic witnessescontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996 and sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the benefit of a subsequent change of law prescribing lesser punishment promulgated during the pendency of the appeal could be extended to the appellant, and whether the non-compliance with the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the association of public witnesses from the locality vitiated the recovery of narcotics. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that substantive penal laws in force at the time of the commission of the offence govern the quantum of punishment, and section 73 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 expressly preserves penalties prescribed under repealed laws. Furthermore, non-joining of witnesses from the locality did not invalidate the recovery made from the person of the appellant in the absence of any proof of mala fides or planting of evidence by the police officials. The key principles laid down are that amendments altering the quantum of punishment are prospective unless expressly made retrospective, and that strict compliance with section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be dispensed with where recoveries are made directly from the person and police testimony is found credible and unimpeached.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of a lesser punishment prescribed by a law enacted during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does the non-joining of public witnesses from the locality under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a recovery made directly from the person of the accused?
  • What is the effect of section 73 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 on penalties prescribed under previous laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhtawar Begum Versus Ahad Zafar2003 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh Versus Bakhsha2003 SCMR 1011 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-23
  concurrent findings of factpower of attorneyburden of prooffraudleave to appealcivil suitsale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a General Power of Attorney and a subsequent sale deed. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging that the Power of Attorney was forged and fraudulent, thereby rendering the subsequent sale of the suit land void. The trial court dismissed the suit, and both the appellate court and the High Court affirmed these findings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the Power of Attorney and the failure of the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact were unassailable as the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding the non-execution of the documents. The Court established the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the petitioner fails to demonstrate a substantial question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a plaintiff alleges the non-execution of a General Power of Attorney?
  • Is a failure to produce an original document fatal to a case when the execution of that document has been challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Akbar Versus Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission through Chairman2002 SCMR 992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-27
  date of birth alterationservice recordcivil declaratory decreelocus poenitentiaePakistan Atomic Energy Commissionbelated claimmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the refusal of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to alter his date of birth in service records. The petitioner, having joined the Commission as an Assistant Engineer based on a matriculation certificate recording his date of birth as 13-6-1964, later obtained a civil court decree declaring his date of birth to be 11-3-1967, without impleading the Commission as a party, and sought a corresponding change in his service record. The core legal questions involve the permissibility of altering an employee's recorded date of birth belatedly on the basis of an ex parte or third-party civil declaratory decree, and the applicability of the principle of locus poenitentiae against the withdrawal of an erroneous administrative order. The Supreme Court held that a date of birth once declared and recorded upon entry into service cannot be altered belatedly through a civil decree obtained without impleading the employer, and that no vested rights accrue from an administrative order issued in ignorance of applicable rules. The Court affirmed that only clerical errors may be rectified and reaffirmed the finality of recorded dates of birth in public employment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can alter his date of birth in service records on the basis of a civil declaratory decree obtained years after entry into service without impleading the employer?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to prevent an authority from withdrawing an administrative order that was issued in oblivion of governing rules?
  • Can a date of birth once declared upon appointment be changed beyond the prescribed limitation or on grounds other than a bona fide clerical error?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Ameer Jamaate-Islami2002 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-27
  constitutional petitionreferendum orderquo warrantostate necessityjudicial reviewpresidential successionextra-constitutional measures
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the legality of the Referendum Order (Chief Executive's Order No. 12 of 2002) and the assumption of the office of President by General Pervez Musharraf. Petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto, arguing these actions violated the Constitution and the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf. The core legal question was whether the Referendum Order and the Chief Executive's assumption of the presidency exceeded the authority granted by the Court's previous validation of the 1999 extra-constitutional measures. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Chief Executive's Orders Nos. 2 and 3 of 2001 were validly issued under the powers previously recognized. The Court further ruled that the Referendum Order was a valid exercise of authority under the Syed Zafar Ali Shah framework. Challenges regarding the consequences of the referendum were deemed premature, academic, and hypothetical. The Court affirmed that while acts of the Chief Executive remain subject to judicial review for nexus to declared objectives, the challenged measures were intra vires the authority previously granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued in collateral proceedings to challenge the assumption of the office of President?
  • Does the Referendum Order (Chief Executive's Order No. 12 of 2002) violate the constitutional framework or the judgment in Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf?
  • Are challenges to the consequences of a referendum order justiciable before the referendum has taken place?
  • Does the Chief Executive have the authority to issue orders regarding the succession to the office of the President of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State Life Insurance2002 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-15
  service terminationArea Managercontractual employmentFederal Service Tribunalperformance standardsleave to appealservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals against the termination of their services as Area Managers by the State Life Insurance Corporation. The core legal question is whether the petitioners, who were terminated for unsatisfactory performance regarding business targets, were contract employees subject to summary termination, or whether their employment was governed by the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, which prescribe specific procedures for performance review and disciplinary action. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal erred in assuming the petitioners were contract employees without examining the merits of their appointment letters or the applicable regulations. The Court held that the termination orders were potentially invalid as they lacked reference to specific Board decisions required by the regulations for performance-based action. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to further examine whether the termination complied with the prescribed regulatory framework, establishing the principle that service termination must strictly adhere to the governing statutory regulations rather than administrative discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Can the services of an Area Manager be terminated for unsatisfactory performance without adherence to the specific procedures prescribed by the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal err in law by dismissing an appeal on the assumption of contract employment without reviewing the actual terms of appointment and governing regulations?
  • Are Area Managers under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, considered contract employees subject to summary termination?
  Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation Versus Muhammad Ahsraf2002 SCMR 932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  premature retirementwithdrawal of retirement requestFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealHouse Building Finance Corporationservice lawcivil servantspension qualifying service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the House Building Finance Corporation against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which allowed the service appeal of the respondent employee. The respondent had applied for premature retirement under a departmental circular adopting certain Federal Government Office Memoranda. However, before his premature retirement request was formally accepted on 13th October 1999 (effective 16th October 1999), the respondent submitted an application on 12th October 1999 to withdraw his retirement request. The petitioner rejected the withdrawal, arguing that under the adopted Office Memoranda, an application for premature retirement cannot be modified or withdrawn once submitted. The Supreme Court observed that the withdrawal was submitted prior to the departmental acceptance of the retirement request. Finding substantial questions of law regarding the applicability and binding nature of government instructions on premature retirement, as well as the employee's legal entitlement to withdraw a retirement request before it takes effect, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a statutory corporation is entitled to the benefit of Government of Pakistan instructions regarding the withdrawal of a request for premature retirement?
  • What is the legal effect of an employee submitting an application to withdraw a premature retirement request prior to the issuance of the final acceptance order by the employer?
  • Whether an employee is barred from withdrawing an option for premature retirement where the departmental circular incorporates an Office Memorandum prohibiting modification or withdrawal of such a request?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Gandaf Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited2002 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  constitutional petitiontax holidayindustrial estateEconomic Coordination Committeeraw material relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which accepted the constitutional petition filed by the respondent-mills, declaring them entitled to a one-time relief of 25% of the total value of raw material based on recommendations of the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC). The respondent was an affectee of the withdrawal of tax holiday incentives granted for establishing an industry in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate under S.R.O. 517(1)/89. The core legal question concerned whether the Board of Revenue could lawfully reject the respondent's application for relief on the ground that it was filed after a deadline arbitrarily fixed by the Board. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the ECC decision prescribed no such deadline, the rejection of the application as time-barred by the Board of Revenue was illegal. The Court reaffirmed the principle that affected industrialists cannot be deprived of the ECC-approved relief through deadlines introduced without foundation in the ECC's actual decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Revenue can reject an application for relief under an Economic Coordination Committee recommendation on the ground of being barred by a self-imposed deadline?
  • Are industrialists affected by the withdrawal of S.R.O. 517(1)/89 entitled to a one-time 25% relief of the total value of raw material without being bound by an arbitrary time limit not prescribed by the ECC?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheela Nasreen Versus State2002 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Khan Lashari Versus Government of Pakistan2002 SCMR 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-12-26Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan Versus Managing Director (Power), WAPDA2002 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-14
  service appealdismissal from servicefinancial fraudinquiry officerfindings of factre-appraisal of evidenceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk/Commercial Assistant in WAPDA, against his dismissal from service for financial fraud involving bogus cash postings. The core legal question revolves around whether factual findings of guilt concurrently arrived at by the departmental inquiry officer and affirmed by the Service Tribunal can be re-appraised or interfered with by the Supreme Court, and whether differential treatment of co-accused provides a ground for interference. The Supreme Court held that findings on questions of fact based on evidence cannot be challenged or re-appraised before the apex court in the absence of any legal defect or infirmity in the departmental proceedings or the Tribunal's judgment, and that the reinstatement of co-accused does not automatically entitle the petitioner to relief. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by service tribunals unless a question of law of public importance is involved or a legal infirmity is demonstrated in the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by a departmental inquiry officer and affirmed by the Service Tribunal be challenged and re-appraised before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the reinstatement of co-accused by the Service Tribunal provide a valid ground for another accused to claim identical relief notwithstanding established involvement?
  • What constitutes a ground for the Supreme Court to interfere with the dismissal order of a service tribunal in disciplinary matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar Versus Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division2002 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-12-20Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited Versus Rasheed Ahmed Memon2002 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-14
  disciplinary inquirybias of inquiry officerreinstatementservice lawmaster and servantdue processbank employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated a bank employee dismissed from service. The respondent, a cashier at United Bank Limited, was terminated following an inquiry into allegations of unauthorized loan procurement. The core legal question was whether the dismissal was lawful given that the bank appointed the same inquiry officer for a second inquiry after the respondent had raised valid objections regarding the officer's partiality and unfair conduct during the first inquiry. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the bank's decision to reappoint the same inquiry officer, despite the respondent's protest and the previous rejection of that officer's findings, was improper and legally flawed. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly set aside the dismissal order, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the requirement for a fresh, unbiased inquiry to address the allegations against the employee while ensuring due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer appoint the same inquiry officer for a second inquiry after the employee has successfully challenged that officer's impartiality in the first inquiry?
  • Does the appointment of a biased inquiry officer vitiate the disciplinary proceedings against an employee?
  • Is a tribunal justified in ordering reinstatement and a fresh inquiry when the initial disciplinary proceedings were conducted in an unfair manner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas, Government of Pakistan2002 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-11
  Northern AreasCivil ServantService Tribunal JurisdictionSeniority DisputeService LawsFederal GovernmentConstitutional Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of a seniority dispute filed by a police employee of the Northern Areas Administration. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as an employee of the Northern Areas, qualified as a 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not a civil servant of the Federal Government. The Court reasoned that the Northern Areas Administration operates under its own distinct rules and regulations, and employment therein does not equate to service under the Federal Government. The key principle laid down is that the mere administration of a territory by the Federal Government does not confer the status of 'civil servant' upon local employees for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, until specific service tribunals are established for the Northern Areas, aggrieved employees may approach courts of general jurisdiction, as the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, does not apply.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Northern Areas Administration a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over employees of the Northern Areas Administration?
  • Can employees of the Northern Areas Administration approach courts of general jurisdiction for service-related grievances?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain Versus Zehra Bai2002 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Versus Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs, Islamabad2002 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan Versus Muhammad Jaffar2002 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-09-29Read full judgment →
• Chapal Builders Versus Government of Sindh2002 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• N.-W.F.P. Employees' Social Security Institution Versus Rising Sun Knit Wear Ltd.2002 SCMR 703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  non-prosecutionrestoration of appealbona fide explanationliquidation proceedingsremanddismissal for default
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging orders of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal for non-prosecution and subsequently rejected an application for its restoration. The appellant, the N.-W.F.P. Employees' Social Security Institution, argued that its failure to appear was not intentional but resulted from a misunderstanding regarding the fixation of the appeal for hearing. The High Court had dismissed the restoration application on the ground that no funds remained with the Official Liquidator for further distribution to the appellant. The Supreme Court examined the explanation provided by the appellant for its non-appearance and found it to be reasonable and bona fide. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and remanded the matter, directing the High Court to dispose of the appeal on its merits. The key principle established is that where a party provides a reasonable and bona fide explanation for non-appearance, the court should exercise discretion to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution to ensure the matter is decided on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant provides a reasonable and bona fide explanation for non-appearance?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to dismiss an application for restoration of an appeal solely on the basis that the underlying claim may yield no further funds?
  Read full judgment →
• S.S. Enterprises, Karachi Versus Federation of Pakistan2002 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-07
  admiralty jurisdictioncustoms dutyauction purchaserimported goodsship breakingleave to appealstatutory liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner purchased two vessels through court-ordered auctions conducted by the Official Assignee under admiralty jurisdiction. Upon moving the vessels to a ship-breaking yard, the Customs authorities demanded payment of customs duty, sales tax, and income tax. The petitioner challenged this demand, contending that the vessels were not imported and were Pakistani goods under the court's control, thus exempt from duty. The High Court dismissed the challenge. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether an auction purchaser is liable for customs duty, whether the proceedings in rem extinguished all claims including tax liabilities, and whether the vessels constituted imported goods subject to duty. The Court noted that while one judge opined that the vessels were subject to duty upon disposal for breakage, the majority granted leave to appeal to determine if the auction process conveyed valid title free from such encumbrances. The matter was set for regular hearing to resolve the statutory liability of the purchaser versus the state's power to collect duties on vessels disposed of for scrap.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser of vessels through court-ordered auction proceedings is liable to pay customs duty?
  • Whether proceedings in rem in admiralty jurisdiction convey title to a vessel free from all encumbrances including customs duty?
  • Whether a vessel sold for breakage after being under the control of the High Court constitutes imported goods subject to customs duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Versus Zafar Iqbal2002 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-06-18
  criminal petitioncognizance of offencepolice reportcolumn No.2 of challanmagistrate powersdischarge of accusedremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from orders passed by the Lahore High Court setting aside an Ilaqa Magistrate's order and remanding the case for fresh disposal. The core legal question involved the legality of a Magistrate's order regarding a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where accused persons were placed in column No.2 of the challan, and whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence irrespective of the police's negative opinion. The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and takes cognizance of the offence as a whole rather than merely of individual offenders. The Court found that the Magistrate's order was well-reasoned and not arbitrary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Magistrate's initial order was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate is bound by the opinion of the investigating officer in a police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a Magistrate taking cognizance under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 take cognizance of the offence or of a particular offender?
  • Can a trial court or Magistrate summon accused persons whose names are placed in column No.2 of the challan without first recording evidence?
  • Whether an order passed by an Ilaqa Magistrate refusing to discharge accused persons constitutes a speaking order when it examines the statements, F.I.R., and record?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies Zone-II, Karachi Versus Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi2002 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus The State2002 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-15
  murderdeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyforensic evidenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution's evidence, particularly eyewitness testimony and forensic reports, was sufficient to sustain the conviction and the capital sentence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through prompt F.I.R. lodgment, consistent eyewitness accounts, and corroborative forensic evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the human blood group of the deceased. The Court affirmed that the appellant's specific role in inflicting the fatal injury justified the conviction and the death sentence. The key principle laid down is that while eyewitnesses related to the deceased require careful scrutiny, their testimony remains reliable and sufficient for conviction when it is natural, convincing, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, especially in the absence of prior enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of related eyewitnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case if it is natural and convincing?
  • Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the blood of the deceased provide sufficient corroboration for eyewitness testimony?
  • Is a death sentence justified when the appellant is specifically attributed with inflicting the fatal injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Versus The State2002 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-28
  illegal gratificationtainted moneyraiding partystatutory presumptionhostile witnesscorruptionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which was maintained by the High Court. The prosecution case was that a raiding party, led by a Magistrate, recovered tainted bribe money from the appellants. The appellants contended that the conviction was unsustainable because the members of the raiding party did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of the transaction, and that the complainant had turned hostile. The Supreme Court held that once the physical passing of the tainted money is witnessed and proved, the failure of the raiding party to hear the conversation does not invalidate the prosecution's case. Under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, once the recovery of the money is established, a statutory presumption of guilt arises, shifting the burden to the accused to prove that the money was not accepted as illegal gratification. The Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a raiding party to hear the conversation between the bribe giver and receiver invalidate a conviction if the physical passing of tainted money is witnessed and proved?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 affect the burden of proof once the recovery of tainted money is established?
  • Can a conviction for corruption be sustained on the basis of other prosecution evidence if the complainant is declared hostile and does not support the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Central Board of Revenue2002 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-26Read full judgment →
• Shadi Khan Versus The State2002 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-05
  double jeopardyautrefois convictcustoms actcontrol of narcotic substancesleave to appealexclusive jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court of Balochistan, which upheld his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of liquid opium and weapons from a vehicle in which he was travelling. The petitioner contended that his trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act was barred by double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan and section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as he had already been convicted for the same incident under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court reviewed conflicting precedents regarding distinct offences and exclusive jurisdiction under anti-narcotics and customs laws. Noting that prior benches of three judges had delivered divergent views on the matter, the Court granted leave to appeal to a larger bench to examine whether offences under the Customs Act and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act are the same offences and whether conviction under one bars trial under the other.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 and an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 constitute the same offence for the purpose of the rule against double jeopardy?
  • Does conviction under the Customs Act, 1969 bar a subsequent or simultaneous trial and conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Do Special Courts created under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 possess exclusive jurisdiction to try narcotics offences to the exclusion of Courts functioning under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghalib Hussain Versus Muhammad Arif2002 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-06-01
  criminal appealmurderappreciation of evidencedeath penaltymotivepolice investigationocular evidencesafe administration of criminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Idris. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of conflicting versions of the incident presented by the prosecution and the police, the credibility of eye-witnesses, and the necessity of motive for sustaining a capital sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentences, finding that the prosecution’s ocular account was natural, consistent, and confidence-inspiring, whereas the police investigation was deliberately dishonest and influenced by external pressure. The Court held that when a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular testimony, the absence of motive or failure to prove it does not affect the conviction or the imposition of the normal penalty of death. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that trial courts are not bound by police findings when such investigations are tainted by bias. The judgment reinforces that the primary duty of the court is to evaluate evidence independently to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive for murder affect the imposition of the death penalty?
  • Is a court bound to accept a version of an incident presented by the police if it contradicts credible ocular evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony despite the existence of a conflicting police investigation report?
  • Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Rafique Ahmad Versus Abdul Hameed2002 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-11
  Specific Relief ActSection 9 suitrecovery of possessionspecific performancerevisionstay of execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal regarding a suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The respondent initially filed a suit under Section 9 alleging illegal dispossession from a shop under an agreement to sell. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 decreed the suit. Meanwhile, the respondent had also instituted a separate suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and recovery of possession based on title. The core legal question was whether a revision petition under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 should be pursued or entertained when a full suit for specific performance and title-based possession is pending, and whether the revisionary judgment was without lawful authority. The Supreme Court granted interim relief by staying the execution of the revisionary decree to protect the petitioner's possession, noting the pendency of the suit for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Constitutional petition maintainable against a revisionary decree passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 when a suit for specific performance based on title is pending?
  • Does the pendency of a suit for specific performance and recovery of possession based on title affect the propriety of granting relief in revision under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Allauddin Versus Settlement Commissioner/Administrator (Residual Properties), Lahore Division, Lahore2002 SCMR 1923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-11
  evacuee propertysettlement lawstransfer of propertypower of reviewlachesopen auction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the Lahore High Court, arising from a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee godown in Lahore. The core legal question revolves around the legitimacy of competing transfer claims, the validity of a subsequent compromise and subsequent administrative clarifications or reviews under evacuee laws, and the effect of prolonged laches. The Supreme Court held that none of the contesting parties—the appellant, a deceased rival claimant, or another objector—were lawfully entitled to the transfer of the disputed godown, as their claims were tainted by manipulation, illegal possession, and lack of proper statutory forms, thereby upholding the finality of an earlier Settlement Commissioner's order directing the property to be sent to the auction pool. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities possess no inherent power of review to modify or alter final orders through unauthorized 'clarifications' based on private compromises between unconcerned persons, and gross indolence or unexplained delay attracts the principles of laches, waiver, and estoppel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a settlement authority has the power to review or modify a final order under the garb of a clarification?
  • Does a compromise between unauthorized claimants confer valid title to evacuee property?
  • Whether an unexplained delay of over a decade in prosecuting a revision petition attracts the principle of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Hussain Khokhar Versus Mst. Nargis Khatoon2002 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus Muhammad Ramzan2002 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-12
  proprietary rightscolonization of government landsequity feeds the estoppelunregistered sale deedtransfer of propertysuit for possessionagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for possession of property (Ahata) where the core dispute concerned competing claims of ownership based on unregistered sale deeds executed in 1966 versus a registered sale deed executed in 1971. The appellants argued that the initial sale was void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as the vendor had not yet acquired proprietary rights from the government. The Supreme Court held that while Section 19 prohibits the permanent transfer of ownership rights without proprietary title, it does not invalidate an agreement to sell. Such agreements remain valid contracts that become enforceable upon the vendor's subsequent acquisition of proprietary rights. The Court affirmed that the principle of 'equity feeds the estoppel' applies, and the protection of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is available to a vendee when the transferor acquires title after the initial transaction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings that the respondents held superior title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of government land by an allottee before acquiring proprietary rights violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
  • Can the protection of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be invoked when a transferor acquires title to property after an initial sale?
  • Does a registered sale deed automatically take precedence over an earlier unregistered sale deed regarding the same property?
  • Is an agreement to sell government land, executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights, enforceable after the vendor acquires such rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd Versus National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi2002 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-02
  consent decreeSection 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationloan restructuringretrospective application of lawcompromise decreeexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners sought to set aside a consent decree passed in 1998, alleging that the underlying Memorandum of Understanding was obtained through fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court observed that the parties had voluntarily entered into the compromise, which was verified by the Court and subsequently acted upon by the petitioners through the payment of four quarterly installments. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide specific particulars or material to substantiate their allegations of fraud or coercion, and that mere assertions do not mandate a judicial inquiry. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Ordinance 2000, enacted after the decree, had no retrospective application to the settled matter. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the consent decree was valid, binding, and not amenable to challenge under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as it lacked the requisite grounds of fraud or jurisdictional defect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere allegation of fraud in an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandate a judicial inquiry?
  • Can a party challenge a consent decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after having partially performed the obligations under the compromise?
  • Does the Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Ordinance 2000 have retrospective effect on consent decrees passed prior to its enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lyallpur Oil & General Mills Versus Habib Bank Limited2002 SCMR 1746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-09-26Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General, Balochistan Versus Akbar Khan2002 SCMR 1676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-26
  leave to appealDiyatKhoon BahaTa'zirjoint liabilitycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan which partially allowed criminal appeals against the acquittal of respondents, convicting them under section 316/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to pay Diyat jointly. The core legal questions pertained to whether Diyat is recoverable jointly or individually from multiple accused, the concept of Khoon Baha under Islamic injunctions, and whether awarding substantive imprisonment as Ta'zir is mandatory under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions regarding the computation and joint/several liability of Diyat and the discretionary nature of Ta'zir imprisonment, issuing bailable warrants for the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • What is the concept of Khoon Baha as per Injunction of Islam in criminal dispensation of justice?
  • Whether Diyat as defined under section 299(e) read with section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 will be recoverable from the accused persons jointly, if their number is more than one for the commission of murder of one person or individually being Khoon Baha, equal to value of silver notified from time to time by the Government?
  • Whether in an offence falling within the mischief of section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Court is bound to award substantive sentence of imprisonment as Ta'zir or otherwise?
  • What would be the criteria for awarding sentence of imprisonment as Ta'zir under section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj.(Retd.) Tariq Mehmood Versus The State2002 SCMR 1493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-21
  retracted judicial confessioncapital chargeforensic evidencecorroborationcriminal appealmurder convictionvoluntariness of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder. The core legal question concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession and whether it could sustain a conviction without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if found to be voluntary, truthful, and confidence-inspiring, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court clarified that while the rule of corroboration serves as a safeguard of prudence, it is not an inflexible requirement to be applied in every case. If the court is satisfied by the circumstances that the confession is genuine, it may rely upon it. In this instance, the petitioner’s confession was deemed voluntary and truthful, supported by motive and forensic evidence matching the weapon to the crime. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the retracted confession, coupled with corroborative evidence, provided a sufficient basis for the judgment, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction for a capital charge?
  • Does the rule of corroboration for a retracted confession constitute an inflexible requirement in criminal cases?
  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted confession if the court is satisfied that it is voluntary and truthful?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession while in police custody automatically invalidate the statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb alias Bhobi Versus The State2002 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-13
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyimmigration offenceleave to appealdiscretionary order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a case registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979 regarding allegations of taking money to send the complainant's sons abroad without fulfilling the promise. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioner to post-arrest bail and the applicability of the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretionary order refusing bail was justified as the petitioner appeared reasonably connected to the charged offence, and further held that the rule of consistency could not be invoked because the petitioner's case was not at par with the co-accused who had been granted bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, laying down that the rule of consistency does not apply where the case of the accused seeking bail is distinguishable from that of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when reasonably connected with an offence under the Immigration Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the rule of consistency be invoked for the grant of bail when the petitioner's case is not at par with a co-accused who was admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqas Versus The State2002 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-11
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausediscretionary jurisdictionleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail, particularly given the lower court's finding that the facts of the case prima facie attracted the provisions of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby invoking the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exercised its discretion correctly in denying bail based on the facts presented in the First Information Report. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition, declining leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail jurisdiction by the High Court where the lower court has correctly applied the law to the facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the application of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the facts of a case trigger the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary order refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanweer Ahmed Haral Versus The State2002 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  post-arrest bailleave to appealfinancial fraudforgerycheatingcriminal breach of trustbank guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's post-arrest bail application. The petitioner, working as a Relationship Manager in Emirates Bank International, was implicated in F.I.R. No. 130 of 2001 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 406 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a major financial fraud involving a forged and fabricated bank letter of guarantee for Rs. 80 million issued by Allied Bank Limited, through which substantial funds were fraudulently withdrawn. Investigation revealed that the petitioner received cheques and funds from the prime beneficiary, and admitted receiving amounts utilized in personal business. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the incriminating material and held that the petitioner is prima facie fully implicated in the commission of a grave financial fraud and is not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused prima facie implicated in a major financial fraud involving forged bank guarantees entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether receipt of funds and cheques from the main beneficiary of a fraudulent transaction disentitles an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeba Versus Abdul Ali2002 SCMR 1315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-10Read full judgment →