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.

• Syed Nazar Abbas Naqvi vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and 29 others1996 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19
  land acquisitionpublic purposevesting of propertylachesconstitutional petitionabandonment of purposemunicipal committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the 1961 acquisition of land by the Town Committee, Bhakkar, for a Town Hall, library, and park. The appellant contended that the acquisition was mala fide, the purpose was abandoned, and the land should be restored. The Supreme Court examined whether the failure to immediately utilize the land for the specified purpose constituted abandonment, and whether the acquiring authority could divert the land to other uses. The Court held that upon completion of acquisition proceedings, the property vests in the government free from all encumbrances under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. It found that the project was not abandoned but merely delayed due to financial constraints, and partial implementation had occurred. Consequently, the Court ruled that temporary utilization or delay does not constitute a diversion of purpose. The principle established is that once land is legally vested in the acquiring authority, it may be utilized for any authorized public purpose or statutory duty, provided there is no proven abandonment or mala fide. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vest in the government free from all encumbrances upon the completion of acquisition proceedings?
  • Does a delay in utilizing acquired land for its intended public purpose constitute an abandonment of that purpose?
  • Can land acquired for a public purpose be utilized for other public purposes or statutory duties after it has vested in the acquiring authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Musarat Hussain Shah vs District Registrar, Rawalpindi and 21996 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-19
  registration of documentsexecution of documentsale deedpower of attorneyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed against the order of the District Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act 1908, whereby the Sub-Registrar was directed to register two sale deeds. The petitioner contended that he never executed the sale deeds and that they did not bear his signatures, having been procured fraudulently after the cancellation of a special power of attorney. The High Court held that a document can be construed as executed even without the personal signature of the executant if it is prepared with his knowledge, consent, and under his instructions. The core legal question is whether documents lacking the signatures of the petitioner can be legally held to have been 'executed' under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 73 of the Registration Act 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this interpretation of execution under the Registration Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a document that does not bear the personal signature of the purported executant can be held to have been executed within the contemplation of Section 73 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Does the District Registrar have the jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Registration Act 1908 to hold an inquiry and decide the question of execution when registration is refused by the Sub-Registrar?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Hussain Bukhari vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department and others1996 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-20
  civil servanttransfercompetent authorityRules of Businesspolitical interferenceSupreme Court precedentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner civil servant's constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of his transfer order. The petitioner, an Accountant in the Local Government and Rural Development Department, had been subjected to multiple successive transfers within a short span, culminating in an order which was subsequently cancelled. The core legal questions involved whether the transfer and cancellation orders were passed by competent authorities independently without political interference, the effect of violating previous Supreme Court directions regarding civil servant transfers, and whether such orders suffer from jurisdictional defects rendering them coram non judice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that questions of law regarding adherence to the Rules of Business and binding precedents of the apex court required consideration by a larger bench, and suspended the impugned cancellation order in the interim. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities must exercise transfer powers strictly in accordance with the law and departmental rules without succumbing to external political influences or flouting judicial guidelines.

  Questions settled

  • Whether transfer and cancellation orders of a civil servant passed at the behest of a minister without independent application of mind by the competent authority are sustainable in law?
  • What is the legal effect of the violation of binding directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding the frequent and arbitrary transfer of civil servants?
  • Whether successive transfer orders passed in violation of the Provincial Transfer Policy and departmental rules involve jurisdictional defects making them coram non judice?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Imran Raza Zaidi, Superintending Engineer, Public Health1996 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunaltemporary injunctioninterim relieftransfer of civil servantbalance of convenienceirreparable injuryappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were directed against an interim order of the Punjab Service Tribunal suspending a civil servant's transfer order. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses the power to grant temporary injunctions during the pendency of an appeal, and whether such power was properly exercised in this case. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal does have the implicit and statutory power under section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, read with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant interim relief and temporary injunctions. However, the Court ruled that the Tribunal improperly exercised this discretion by failing to consider settled principles governing temporary injunctions in service matters, namely establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, particularly where the transfer order had already been acted upon and implemented months prior. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the interim suspension order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal possess the power to issue temporary injunctions or interim relief during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order to a corporation or body set up by the Government under section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act?
  • What are the essential principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions by a Service Tribunal in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikharuddin Haidar Gardezi and 9 others vs Central Bank of India Ltd., Lahore and 2 others1996 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-24
  appellate procedurereserved judgmentdelay in judgmentremandcivil procedureappellate court duties
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for recovery of money filed by the Central Bank of India against the appellants, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The High Court subsequently accepted the Bank's appeal and set aside the trial court's decree. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court’s judgment, delivered eight months after the conclusion of arguments, satisfied the legal requirements for a valid appellate decision under the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the delay of eight months in announcing the judgment was unreasonable and violated the spirit of Order 41, Rule 30, C.P.C., which mandates that judgments be pronounced within a reasonable time after hearing. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court failed to adequately consider the material evidence on record, specifically the testimony of a key witness, and failed to address the issues in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing that reserved judgments must be announced within a reasonable period to ensure judicial integrity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of eight months in announcing a reserved judgment violate the requirements of Order 41, Rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Code?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide an appeal issue-wise under Order 41, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code?
  • Can an appellate court's judgment be set aside if it fails to consider material evidence on record?
  • What is the maximum reasonable period for announcing a judgment after the conclusion of arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Hussain vs Ijaz Ahmad Cheema and another1996 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-27
  election petitionrecount of ballot papersinvalid votesElection Tribunalwithdrawal of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal against an interlocutory or procedural order passed by an Election Tribunal regarding the recounting of ballot-papers and the summoning of election records. The core legal question concerns the handling of disputed ballot-papers bearing double seals and whether objections regarding their validity can be examined and adjudicated by the Tribunal during the proceedings. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn after recording the statement of the appellant's counsel that the appeal would not be pressed if an assurance was given that the appellant would be afforded a hearing by the Election Tribunal on the specific written objections raised concerning the invalidity of the ballot-papers. The Court laid down the principle that an election petitioner or contesting candidate is entitled to be heard by the Election Tribunal on validly raised written objections regarding tampered or doubly-sealed ballot-papers during the recount process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Election Tribunal is bound to hear objections regarding the validity of ballot-papers raised during a recount?
  • Can an appellant withdraw an appeal upon receiving an observation from the court ensuring a hearing by the Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftiicharul Hassan Shah vs Ijaz Ahmad Cheema and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15
  election petitionrecount of ballot paperssecrecy of the votecross-examinationelection irregularitiestampering with election recordremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an Election Tribunal's decision setting aside the appellant's election to the National Assembly and declaring the respondent the winner following a recount. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal erred in summarily dismissing the appellant’s miscellaneous applications alleging tampering and irregularities in the recount process without permitting the production of evidence or the cross-examination of witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s summary disposal of these applications was improper. The Court emphasized that the credibility of witnesses and the veracity of evidence can only be effectively tested through cross-examination, and a party should not be denied the opportunity to lead evidence on serious allegations of election malpractice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned decision and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with directions to record evidence regarding the alleged irregularities and to address the validity of ballot papers containing identifying marks, which violate the secrecy of the vote. The Tribunal was directed to conclude proceedings within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Election Tribunal summarily dismiss applications alleging election irregularities without recording evidence?
  • Is it permissible for an Election Tribunal to deny a party the right to cross-examine witnesses regarding allegations of election tampering?
  • Do ballot papers containing identifying marks, such as national identity card numbers, violate the secrecy of the vote and warrant rejection?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah Bokhari vs Postmaster-General, Southern, Punjab Circle, Lahroe and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-14
  service tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsappointing authoritycharge-sheetgovernment servantmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a clerk in the Post Office Department, was charge-sheeted for serious disciplinary violations, including entering a government office with a gun to forcibly take a parcel containing narcotics, and was subsequently penalized with reduction in his time scale of pay after departmental proceedings. The core legal question raised was whether the Senior Postmaster, Gujranwala, being a Grade-16 officer, was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue a charge-sheet to the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the Senior Postmaster, as the head of G.P.O. Gujranwala, was the competent appointing authority for the petitioner's grade under the applicable notification, and therefore the disciplinary proceedings were lawfully initiated. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the legality of the departmental action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Grade-16 Senior Postmaster is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue a charge-sheet to a Grade-7 postal clerk?
  • Does a failure to raise a legal objection regarding the competency of the authorising officer before the service tribunal preclude raising it before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamid Mahmood Gilani vs Abdul Rehman1996 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-24
  ejectment applicationbona fide personal needlandlord-tenant disputeleave to appealconcealment of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal need for the rented premises to justify the tenant's eviction. The Rent Controller and the High Court had both dismissed the application, noting that the petitioner's son had previously filed an ejectment application for the same premises, which was dismissed in default, and that the petitioner was already operating a clinic at the time of that earlier application. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove a bona fide personal need, particularly given the concealment of the previous litigation and the fact that the petitioner was already established in business elsewhere. The Court affirmed that where a landlord fails to disclose prior failed attempts to evict for the same purpose and fails to demonstrate genuine necessity, the ejectment application is rightly dismissed. The petition was consequently dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a landlord to disclose a previous ejectment application filed by a family member regarding the same premises undermine the claim of bona fide personal need?
  • Can an ejectment application be sustained when the landlord is already operating a business elsewhere at the time of filing?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Shah and 2 others vs Rana Muhammad Asif and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-10
  service tribunal jurisdictionpromotion to tehsildarfitness for promotionseniorityconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who had a longer total length of service than respondent No. 1, were selected for promotion as Tehsildars in preference to him. Respondent No. 1 challenged this selection through a Constitution petition in the High Court, which allowed the petition by holding that seniority within the cadre of assistants, rather than total length of service, should govern the appointments. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell exclusively within the competence of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether the controversy related to the fitness for promotion or the determination of principles governing selection, and whether the Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the controversy pertained to the terms and conditions of service and the correct principle governing selection rather than mere fitness, thereby falling within the competence of the Service Tribunal, and granted leave to appeal while restraining the demotion of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding the principle governing selection for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Did the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the criteria used for promotion to Tehsildar?
  • Is the determination of length of service versus cadre seniority for promotion a matter of fitness or a question relating to terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Afzal Ahmed Hydari and another vs Secretary, Defence1996 PLC (C.S.) 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-04
  civil serviceseniority listrecruitment rulesdiscipline-wise seniorityintra virespromotionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Research Officers in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DESTO), challenged the validity of a discipline-wise seniority list issued by the Defence Production Division. They contended that the 1988 amendments to the Recruitment Rules, which introduced discipline-based groups, were detrimental to their seniority and violated Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether the government could amend recruitment rules to create discipline-wise seniority groups and whether such amendments conflicted with statutory seniority requirements. The Supreme Court held that the amendments were intra vires, noting that previous judicial findings had already upheld their legality. The Court further held that Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, does not mandate the maintenance of an overall seniority list and does not preclude the creation of separate seniority lists for different occupational groups. The Court concluded that the rule changes were a legitimate administrative measure for specialization and did not constitute mala fide action or cause detriment to the petitioners. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, mandate the maintenance of an overall seniority list for all employees in a department?
  • Can the government amend recruitment rules to create discipline-wise seniority groups within a department?
  • Does the introduction of discipline-wise seniority lists necessarily constitute a detriment to existing civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Superintending Engineer, Communication and Works, Highway Circle, Kohat vs Mian Faiz Muhammad & Co. Akora Khattak1996 PLD Supreme Court 797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  arbitration awardlimitation periodservice of noticeobjections to awardarbitration proceedingsconstructive knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the dismissal of objections to an arbitration award on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner contended that under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, the period for filing objections only commences upon the formal service of notice regarding the filing of the award, as mandated by Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the absence of a formal notice renders the limitation period inapplicable or the proceedings void. The Court held that while the provisions for notice under Section 14 are mandatory, they are intended to inform parties of the award's status. Where a party has actual knowledge of the award and its filing, the lack of formal notice cannot be used to circumvent limitation periods. The Court affirmed that once a party has knowledge of the award and its contents, the limitation period for filing objections under Article 158 begins, regardless of whether a formal notice was served.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award under Article 158 of the Limitation Act commence only upon formal service of notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can a party who has actual knowledge of an arbitration award and its filing plead the absence of formal notice to circumvent the limitation period for filing objections?
  • Does the failure to serve a formal notice of the filing of an arbitration award render the subsequent court proceedings or the award itself void?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan and 2 others vs Muhammad Nawaz and another1996 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-09
  pre-emptioncompromiserelinquishment of rightmerger of decreeappealpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption matter where two separate suits for possession through pre-emption were decreed in favour of two different pre-emptors, subject to depositing pre-emption money. During the pendency of appeals, the petitioners and one of the pre-emptors entered into a compromise whereby she relinquished her right of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether such a compromise amounted to a transfer of land in favour of the vendees or whether it enabled the remaining pre-emptor to claim the entire land upon depositing the total pre-emption price. The Supreme Court held that the compromise amounted to a relinquishment of the pre-emption right rather than a transfer of land, and since the pre-emptor's title was subject to the pending appeal, it merged into the appellate outcome. The Court laid down that title acquired via a pre-emption decree remains subject to the result of any pending appeal, and a compromise involving the relinquishment of a pre-emption right does not constitute an alienation of land requiring a separate pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise involving the relinquishment of a pre-emption right during the pendency of an appeal amount to a transfer of land?
  • Is title acquired under a pre-emption decree subject to the result of a pending appeal?
  • What is the effect of the doctrine of merger when an appeal is filed against a pre-emption decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Sufi Muhammad Ishaque vs The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore1996 PLD Supreme Court 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-17
  damagesmental torturenervous shockdemolitionduty of careforeseeabilitygeneral damagestort
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for damages filed by the appellant, whose shop was abruptly and illegally demolished by the respondent, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, without notice, resulting in the destruction and loss of his merchandise, structure, and livelihood. The trial court had awarded total damages of Rs. 6,50,000, which the High Court subsequently reduced to Rs. 2,91,600, including a reduction of damages for mental torture to Rs. 10,000. The Supreme Court examined the modern jurisprudence on damages for mental torture, nervous shock, and psychiatric illness, noting that physical presence at the scene of the incident is not a condition precedent for such claims. The Court held that a person is entitled to recover damages for mental shock where it is a natural, immediate, and foreseeable result of the defendant's wrongful act. Finding that the respondent owed a duty of care to notify the appellant, the Court partly allowed the appeal, increasing the damages for mental shock and suffering to Rs. 50,000.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff recover damages for mental torture and nervous shock resulting from a wrongful act or breach of duty by the defendant?
  • Is physical presence at the scene of the incident a condition precedent for claiming damages for mental or nervous shock?
  • What is the test of foreseeability applied by courts to determine liability for mental shock and suffering?
  • How should courts assess the quantum of general damages for mental shock and suffering in the absence of a precise mathematical yardstick?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar Sher Afzal Khan and another vs Muhammad Hanif through Legal1996 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04
  pre-emptionurban immovable propertyagricultural landco-sharersuperior right of pre-emptionN.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside an appellate court decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The appellants challenged a land sale based on their superior right of pre-emption. The lower courts had held that the disputed land had lost its agricultural character and become urban immovable property, thereby rendering pre-emption laws inapplicable. The core legal question was whether the change of character of the land from agricultural to urban immovable property defeats a pre-emption suit under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that unlike the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which draws strict distinctions between agricultural and urban properties regarding pre-emption rights, Section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, provides for the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land, village immovable property, and urban immovable property alike. The Court laid down the principle that a pre-emption suit remains maintainable regarding urban immovable property under the N.-W.F.P. enactment provided the statutory grounds such as co-ownership or contiguity are met, irrespective of whether the land's character changed from agricultural to urban.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of agricultural land into urban immovable property extinguish the right of pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • Are the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, regarding urban immovable property identical to those of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • Does Section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, apply uniformly to agricultural land, village immovable property, and urban immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P. and anothers vs Shah Jehan and another1996 SCMR 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-06
  leave to appealacquittalmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceretracted confessionbailable warrant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, Shah Jehan, by the Peshawar High Court. The respondent had been convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court subsequently set aside this conviction and acquitted the accused. The State sought leave to appeal, contending that the High Court erred in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, particularly given that the murder occurred within the house, the incident was witnessed by the complainant (the deceased's father) and the accused's mother (who sustained injuries), and the case was supported by medical evidence, motive, and a retracted confession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court was legally justified in its acquittal in light of the ocular and circumstantial evidence presented. The Court also ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court legally justified in extending the benefit of doubt to an accused in a murder case where ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence and a retracted confession?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against an acquittal where the prosecution alleges that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the ocular and circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution vs Allwin Engineering1996 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  constitutional petitionalternative remedysocial security contributionadjudication on meritspreliminary objectionmaintainabilitySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed constitutional petitions challenging the appellant's authority to claim social security contributions for certain employees. The High Court held that the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance provided an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy, rendering constitutional petitions non-maintainable. Despite this finding on the preliminary point, the High Court proceeded to make observations on the merits regarding the interpretation of provisions concerning 'employees' and wage limits. The core legal question is whether a court, upon declining to entertain a petition on a preliminary ground of alternative remedy, should adjudicate or express views on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that once a court concludes a petition is not maintainable due to an alternative remedy, it ought not to make observations on the merits so as not to prejudice the parties or pre-empt the first forum. The appeals were accordingly allowed, and the High Court's observations on merits were expunged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court should express views on the merits of a case after holding that a constitutional petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an adequate alternative remedy under the statute?
  • Can a court pre-empt the first forum from placing its interpretation on a statutory provision when dismissing a petition on a preliminary ground?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique alias Kali and others vs The State1996 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  murdergrave and sudden provocationocular testimonymedical evidenceleave to appealjoint liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the judgment of the High Court affirming the trial court's conviction and sentencing of the petitioners under Sections 302/149 and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted and killed the deceased, Salamat Ali, and subsequently brought Mst. Ramzan Bibi to the scene and murdered her, motivated by a prior abduction dispute. The petitioners raised the defense of grave and sudden provocation, claiming the deceased were found in a compromising position. The High Court rejected this defense, noting that the murders occurred in an open courtyard during May when villagers sleep outside, making a compromising position highly improbable. Furthermore, the medical evidence showing multiple types of weapons belied the claim that a single accused committed the acts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence was properly appreciated without any misreading, and the defense of grave and sudden provocation was rightly rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be sustained if the physical circumstances and location of the crime render the alleged compromising position highly improbable?
  • Whether the use of multiple distinct weapons, as shown by medical evidence, can defeat a defense claim that a single accused committed the murders under provocation?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction where there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• Sibghatullah and another vs The State and others1996 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-05
  murderappraisal of evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusocular evidencesifting grain from the chaffacquittalcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant Sibghatullah under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf, while acquitting a co-accused and dismissing an appeal against the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether the acquittal of several co-accused tainted the entire ocular testimony under the principle of sifting grain from the chaff, and whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the same evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence, and that ocular testimony found credible and consistent upon close appraisal can be acted upon to sustain a conviction despite the acquittal of other co-accused. The Court laid down that the acquittal of some accused does not automatically destroy the credibility of eye-witnesses against a remaining accused where the testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and motive, and stands the test of cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons renders ocular evidence entirely unreliable against a remaining convicted appellant?
  • Does the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to the appraisement of evidence in criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on ocular testimony that was partly rejected regarding other co-accused?
  • Under what circumstances is re-appraisal of evidence justified by the Supreme Court in criminal appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Mehmood Butt vs Iftikhar-Ul-Haq and 3 others1996 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-17
  cancellation of bailfurther enquirycounter-versiontentative assessmentprivate defencepost-arrest bailmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two criminal petitions filed by the complainant seeking leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to multiple accused in a double murder case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 PPC. The incident involved two counter-versions recorded in separate FIRs arising out of the execution of an eviction order. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the material on record to grant bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the grant of bail, reiterating that in cases involving counter-versions and pleas of private defense, the determination of which version is true or which party is the aggressor falls within the realm of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court affirmed that courts evaluating bail applications may conduct a tentative assessment of available material without expressing conclusive findings on guilt or innocence, and held that the High Court's assessment was neither perverse nor capricious.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether the existence of counter-versions in separate FIRs for the same incident constitutes a ground for further enquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the distinction between tentative assessment of evidence for bail and elaborate sifting/appraisement of evidence reserved for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rashid Ahmad vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-28
  transfer of prisonersuppression of terrorist activitiesinherent powerscriminal appealconsultation with legal practitionermala fide transferSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for transfer from Bahawalpur Jail to Rawalpindi Jail during the pendency of his criminal appeal against a conviction under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court has jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to order the transfer of a convict prisoner from one jail to another, notwithstanding the exclusionary provisions of section 7 of the said Act, and whether section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or inherent powers can be invoked to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court held that although section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 excludes certain specific powers, the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to pass necessary orders to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, especially where a transfer order is shown to be unmotivated or mala fide and departs from prison rules without justification. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioner's transfer was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order the transfer of a convict prisoner from one jail to another during the pendency of an appeal under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can the High Court invoke section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant relief not expressly barred when necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process?
  • Does the transfer of a convict prisoner away from the station where his appeal is being heard violate the fundamental right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under Article 10 of the Constitution?
  • What constitutes a fit case for the High Court to interfere with the custody or prison placement of a convict during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali and others vs Sufi Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din1996 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28
  pre-emptionrevisional jurisdictionSection 115 C.P.C.concurrent findingsagricultural landurban immovable propertymixed question of law and fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning whether the subject land was agricultural or urban immovable property. The trial and appellate courts concurrently held the land was agricultural and thus pre-emptible. The High Court, in revision, reversed these findings, concluding the land had attained the character of urban property. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., by re-appraising evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on assumptions unsupported by the record. The Court clarified that determining the nature of land—whether agricultural or urban—is a mixed question of law and fact, not a pure question of law. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and do not permit the re-examination of evidence unless the lower court’s findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or rely on inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of whether land is agricultural or urban in character a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C.?
  • Does the mere assessment of land to land revenue conclusively prove its character as agricultural land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ayaz and 2 others vs Malik Ishtiaq1996 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  bona fide requirementrent restrictionperpetual leaselocus standievictiongift deedlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction order granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the High Court under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, based on the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. The appellants challenged the eviction, arguing that the landlord possessed other premises and that a prior agreement created a perpetual lease in their favor. The Supreme Court addressed whether an indefinite lease agreement creates a heritable interest and whether a tenant has standing to challenge the landlord's title via a gift deed. The Court held that, under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a lease for an indefinite period generally ensures only for the lifetime of the grantee, not their heirs, unless specific language indicates otherwise. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a tenant lacks locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift deed regarding the property, absent proof of mala fide. The concurrent findings regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement were upheld as questions of fact. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does a lease agreement for an indefinite period create a heritable interest for the lessee's heirs?
  • Does a tenant have the legal standing to challenge the validity of a gift deed executed in favor of the landlord?
  • Is the determination of whether a landlord's existing premises are sufficient for their business needs a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mahmood Saeed and others vs Amir Nawaz Khan and another1996 SCMR 839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-18
  quashment of proceedingsSection 145 Cr.P.C.inherent powers of High Courtabuse of processland disputecompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court order refusing to quash proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) concerning a land dispute. The petitioners sought quashment under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., arguing that a prior compromise before a Revenue E.A.C. court rendered the ongoing criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The core legal question was whether the existence of a disputed compromise agreement constitutes sufficient grounds for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash pending Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the alleged compromise did not provide a valid basis for quashment in this instance. The Court affirmed that while the High Court possesses the power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of court process or unnecessary harassment, such powers should not be exercised lightly. The Court reiterated the principle that cases should generally proceed according to law, and Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. should not be used to circumvent due process unless the proceedings are clearly vexatious or false.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a prior compromise agreement between parties automatically justify the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C.?
  • Under what circumstances should the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings?
  • Is the pendency of a civil or revenue dispute regarding a compromise sufficient ground to halt criminal proceedings concerning the possession of land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Azizullah vs Haji Qismat Khan and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  arbitration agreementawardreference to arbitrationpecuniary jurisdictionleave to appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute regarding an arbitration agreement and award. The petitioner sought to make an arbitration award a rule of court, but the respondent denied executing the arbitration agreement. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding no valid arbitration agreement or award, which was upheld through successive appellate and revisional forums, culminating in the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's revision. The core legal question was whether an ambiguous document lacking the nature of the dispute can constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement must clearly state the existence of a dispute to be referred to arbitration; an ambiguous document silent on the nature of the dispute cannot form the basis of a valid reference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that vague and ambiguous arbitration agreements vitiate arbitration proceedings, though the petitioner remains at liberty to seek redress through an ordinary civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ambiguous document silent on the nature of a dispute can constitute a valid arbitration agreement?
  • Does the absence of a clearly stated dispute vitiate arbitration proceedings?
  • Can an unregistered arbitration agreement and award be made a rule of court when its execution is denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazia Iram vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health and others1996 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-11
  medical college admissionurban versus rural quotamerit-based admissionconstitutional petitionsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which had dismissed the appellant's constitution petition upholding the refusal of admission to Bolan Medical College by its Selection Committee. The core legal question was whether an applicant, whose application for admission against a reserved rural seat was rejected on the ground of being a resident of an urban area, could be considered for an urban seat on merits even if she had not specifically applied for it. The Supreme Court held that an applicant entitled to admission on merit cannot be denied admission merely due to an omission to apply for a specific reserved category, provided they otherwise qualify on merits and the college prospectus does not bar it. Relying on precedent, the Court ruled that rejecting candidates on such hyper-technical grounds militates against the spirit of institutional admission policies. The appeal was accordingly allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and regularizing the appellant's admission against an urban seat.

  Questions settled

  • Can an applicant whose candidature for a reserved rural seat is rejected on residency grounds be considered for an urban seat on merits without a formal separate application?
  • Does an omission to apply for a specific reserved category serve as a sufficient ground to deny admission to an applicant otherwise qualified on open merit?
  • Whether hyper-technical objections regarding application forms can override substantive merit in educational institution admissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid-Ul-Qayyum and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Economic Affairs and Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12
  Service TribunalDepartmental PenaltyLeave to AppealCross-examinationCivil ServantReduction in Rank
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-6-1994, which modified departmental penalties imposed upon a civil servant, Shahid-ul-Qayyum, reducing them to stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect. The core legal questions involve whether penalties could be sustained when the tribunal found the petitioner's only fault was purchasing an air-conditioner without written approval and lacking direct responsibility for store shortages, and whether an inquiry is vitiated when a petitioner is denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the lack of justification for penalties and the vitiation of the inquiry due to denial of cross-examination required detailed consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioner employee and the Federation of Pakistan, establishing that procedural fairness regarding cross-examination and the proportionality of penalties based on established factual findings warrant full appellate review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental penalty can be sustained when the Service Tribunal finds the employee's only fault was a procedural omission without direct responsibility for loss?
  • Does the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses vitiate a departmental inquiry?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the authority to modify departmental penalties imposed upon a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid and 2 others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-05
  criminal revisionacquittalretrialreappraisal of evidenceocular testimonypowers of high courtmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the trial court's acquittal of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and remanded the case for retrial. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in ordering a retrial after setting aside the acquittal, and whether such an order violated the principles regarding delayed trials. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the trial court had failed to evaluate the ocular evidence independently and merely reproduced defense arguments. The Court clarified that the remand was not a de novo trial requiring fresh evidence, but merely a reconsideration of the existing record regarding ocular testimony, thereby distinguishing it from cases where prolonged delays bar a retrial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that a trial court cannot abdicate its duty to independently evaluate evidence simply due to a lack of assistance from counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court order a retrial in a criminal revision against an acquittal under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an order of retrial restricted to the reconsideration of existing ocular evidence constitute a de novo trial attracting the bar of prolonged delay?
  • Is a trial court absolved from independently evaluating evidence merely because the State counsel failed to satisfactorily reply to defense arguments?
  • What are the mandatory requirements of a criminal judgment under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Akhtar vs Miss Farzana Shaheen and 3 others1996 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-28
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionservice disputeredesignation of postUniversity of Peshawarestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench which allowed the Constitution petition filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was originally appointed as Assistant Provost (Girls) by the University of Peshawar, and her post was later redesigned as Warden and transferred to the New Tribal Hostel for Girls. Subsequently, the University advertised the post of Assistant Provost, leading to competing claims between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, who was ultimately recommended by the Selection Board. After withdrawing a civil suit and injunction proceedings, respondent No. 1 successfully challenged the University's action through a Constitution petition, wherein the High Court held that the original post was not abolished but merely redesigned, rendering it unavailable for advertisement, and that the University's action was tainted with mala fides. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding the abolition of the post, estoppel against an unsuccessful applicant, and the maintainability of the Constitution petition, and consequently granted leave to appeal while continuing interim arrangements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a post that has been redesigned along with its incumbent remains available for fresh advertisement and initial recruitment?
  • Whether an employee who applies for a post under protest is estopped from subsequently challenging the appointment made to that post?
  • Whether the redesignation of a university post can be validly executed by the Registrar?
  • Whether a Constitution petition is maintainable against service matters of a university governed by its statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahamad and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-23
  criminal appealocular testimonyeyewitness credibilitymurder convictionreasonable doubtpolice investigationcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants, Rasab and Shahamad, for the murder of the deceased, Shera, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted the appellants, and the High Court maintained these convictions, relying primarily on the ocular testimony of two witnesses. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt when the credibility of the sole remaining eyewitness was severely compromised by prior inconsistent statements made during the police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable. The Court noted that the High Court had correctly rejected one witness but erred in relying on the second, whose testimony was contradicted by his own admissions during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court held that motive and the First Information Report, when recorded by a person not present at the scene, cannot corroborate unreliable ocular evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when the witness's presence at the scene is rendered doubtful by prior inconsistent statements?
  • Does the existence of a motive provide sufficient corroboration for unreliable eyewitness testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Can a First Information Report serve as corroborative evidence if the complainant was not an eyewitness to the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-15
  murdercommon intentionocular testimonyleave to appealdeath sentencecriminal appealappreciation of evidenceinterested witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding convictions under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the impact of the acquittal of co-accused on the prosecution's case, and the applicability of common intention in a sudden fight. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appraised the evidence, noting that the prompt lodging of the FIR and the presence of injured witnesses established the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the acquittal of co-accused did not invalidate the conviction of the petitioners, as the courts had properly differentiated their roles. Consequently, the Court affirmed the convictions and life sentences for two petitioners but granted leave to appeal specifically to determine whether the death sentence of the primary petitioner, Shah Nawaz, was justified compared to the life sentences awarded to his co-accused. The judgment reaffirms that distinct evidence against specific accused sustains convictions despite partial acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when the witnesses are alleged to be interested and inimical?
  • Is the sentence of death for one co-accused justified when other co-accused, convicted under the same sections, receive life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1996 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23
  land acquisitioncompensationconstitutional jurisdictionlachestime-barredwrit petitionmarket value
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had directed WAPDA to pay Rs. 12,000 as compensation for land acquired in 1968. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, sought an order for payment at current market rates. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could re-determine the market value of land acquired decades prior, or direct the Land Acquisition Officer to do so, when the original compensation had already been determined under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court could not determine market value in constitutional jurisdiction, nor could it order the Land Acquisition Officer to revisit a determination long settled under the Land Acquisition Act. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was time-barred by nine days without sufficient cause for condonation, and the original writ petition itself could have been dismissed on the grounds of laches given the significant delay between the 1968 acquisition and the 1991 filing.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction determine the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is a writ petition challenging land compensation amounts maintainable after a significant delay amounting to laches?
  • Can a court direct a Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine compensation for land acquired decades earlier?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18
  post-arrest bailconfessional statementstolen vehicleforged documentsprima facie casecar-liftingcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court of Baluchistan. The petitioners were arrested in connection with a case involving stolen vehicles and forged documents, based on a confessional statement made by a co-accused who identified the petitioners as recipients of stolen vehicles. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds that the only evidence against them was the co-accused's confession and that a co-accused found in the vehicle had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that at the pre-trial stage, the confessional statement provided sufficient prima facie evidence of a regular scheme involving the petitioners in car-lifting and the receipt of stolen property. The Court affirmed that where there is prima facie evidence of a systematic criminal enterprise, the mere absence of other evidence at the initial stage does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the allegations involve organized criminal activity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a confessional statement of a co-accused constitute sufficient material to deny bail at the initial stage of investigation?
  • Is the principle of consistency applicable to bail applications when the roles of the accused are distinct?
  • Does the mere absence of additional evidence beyond a co-accused's confession entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Hussain and another1996 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18
  pre-emptionreview petitionTalab-e-Ishhadrevival of proceedingsright of pre-emptionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously refused leave to appeal in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners originally filed a suit for pre-emption in 1982, which was decreed in 1987. However, the appellate court set aside this decree, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Said Kamal's case regarding the limitation on pre-emption decrees after July 31, 1986. Following the enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the petitioners sought revival of their suit under Section 35 of that Act, but their application was rejected by the lower courts. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined whether the petitioners were denied a fair hearing and whether their case was correctly dismissed in light of the applicable law. The Court held that because the suit was pending during the relevant period and the application for revival was timely, the matter required deeper consideration, particularly regarding the performance of 'Talab-e-Ishhad' in the presence of witnesses. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous dismissal order to allow for a full hearing on these contentions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for pre-emption pending between August 1, 1986, and March 28, 1990, be revived under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Is the performance of 'Talab-e-Ishhad' in the presence of two truthful witnesses a matter requiring in-depth judicial consideration in pre-emption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseheroin recoverydelay in trialProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application and a cancellation application regarding co-accused in a criminal case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, concerning the alleged recovery of 63 kilograms of heroin from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, declining to interfere as the petitioner was caught red-handed with a huge quantity of heroin, the case falls within the prohibitory clause, and the delay in trial could not be attributed to the prosecution without supporting interim orders. The key principle laid down is that an accused seeking bail on the ground of delay must place on record interim orders to establish that the delay is not attributable to him.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case involving the recovery of a huge quantity of heroin fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration when interim trial orders are withheld to determine responsibility for the delay?
  • Can bail be granted where the accused was caught red-handed with narcotics and no proof of unjustified trial delay by the prosecution is placed on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiqur Rehman vs The State1996 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-04
  murder convictioninterested witnesscorroboration of evidenceprompt FIRabscondenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained given the defense's contention that the eye-witnesses, being related to the deceased, were 'interested witnesses' whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful and lacked corroboration. The Court examined the credibility of the eye-witnesses, the promptness of the First Information Report (FIR), and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution's case was corroborated by the medical evidence and the prompt filing of the FIR. The Court held that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not automatically render their testimony unreliable, provided their presence is credible and corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, the appellant's abscondence following the incident served as additional incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the evidence sufficiently connected the appellant to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an FIR considered a factor in establishing the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused be used as a factor to support a conviction in a murder case?
  • Does the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the presence of an eye-witness at the scene warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Rashid Ahmad vs The Election Tribunal and another1996 SCMR 1538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27
  election appealinterim orderleave to appealinterpretation of statuteelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the word "decision" as used in Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, specifically whether it encompasses interim orders alongside final decisions and permits an appeal to the Supreme Court. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the operation of the impugned order should be suspended for the time being, thereby allowing a full review of whether interim orders fall within the scope of the statutory provision governing appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word 'decision' in section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 include an interim order?
  • Can an aggrieved party file an appeal before the Supreme Court against an interim order passed under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Akram and 11 others vs Muhammad Iqbal and 18 others1996 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-25
  service of noticecounsel's authoritynon-prosecutionpower of attorneyprocedural lawrebuttable presumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order regarding the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether service of notice on a counsel, whose power of attorney remained on record despite an informal intimation that the client had retrieved the brief, constitutes valid service on the party under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that service on a counsel is deemed service on the party unless the counsel has formally sought and obtained the court's permission to withdraw their power of attorney in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Court held that the legal presumption under the relevant rules of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory to ensure the efficient administration of justice, preventing counsel from unilaterally avoiding notice. Consequently, because the petitioners' counsel had not filed a formal application to withdraw, the notice served upon him remained valid and effectual, and the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does service of notice on a counsel constitute valid service on the party under Order III Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a counsel required to obtain formal court permission to withdraw their power of attorney to cease being the agent for service of notice?
  • Can a party claim lack of notice if their counsel was served but failed to appear at the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Government of Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism1996 PLC (C.S.) 664, 1996 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15
  service appealrecovery from gratuityefficiency and discipline rulesopportunity of hearingleave to appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent's service appeal and set aside the departmental order directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.39,306 out of his gratuity. The core legal question concerns the legality of recovering alleged financial liabilities from a retired civil servant's gratuity without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings or providing an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly set aside the recovery order and directed the department to proceed in accordance with the law to determine liability, as no proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules had been initiated against the respondent. The key principle laid down is that recovery of financial liability from a retired employee's gratuity cannot be effected without proper departmental proceedings and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental authority recover alleged financial liabilities from a retired civil servant's gratuity without initiating formal proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
  • Whether an opportunity of hearing must be provided to a civil servant before determining his liability for recovery from retirement benefits?
  • Does the failure to conduct proper disciplinary proceedings render an order of recovery from gratuity unlawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department vs Miss1996 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17
  compulsory retirementcivil servantuncommunicated adverse remarkspublic interestservice tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed a service appeal and set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondent, a Nursing Superintendent, who had been retired under section 12(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could be compulsorily retired in the public interest based on uncommunicated adverse remarks and without objective justification despite a long unblemished career. The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated adverse remarks cannot be treated as adverse and rendered ineffective, and that the power to retire a civil servant in the public interest under section 12 requires objective reasons and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court laid down the principle that uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be used against a civil servant, and compulsory retirement in the public interest must be supported by valid, objective material rather than unblemished or uncommunicated records.

  Questions settled

  • Can uncommunicated adverse remarks be used to justify the compulsory retirement of a civil servant?
  • Whether the power to compulsorily retire a civil servant in the public interest under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is unbridled?
  • Is an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal within time if reckoned from the date of communication of the departmental rejection letter?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. Zakat/Social. Welfare1996 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13
  civil servicetermination of serviceirregular appointmentcompetent authorityreinstatementprocedural lapsetaking benefit of own wrong
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, reinstating a civil servant. The respondent was appointed as a salesman on a temporary basis by the competent authority, but his services were subsequently terminated on the ground that his appointment was irregular and violated Rule 10(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989. The Service Tribunal accepted the civil servant's appeal, holding that procedural lapses committed by the appointing authority could not penalize the employee. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, ruling that the petitioners, having themselves appointed the qualified respondent in violation of procedural rules, could not turn around and take benefit of their own lapses to terminate his services. The Court affirmed that an appointing authority cannot rely on its own procedural irregularities to dismiss an otherwise qualified employee.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department terminate an employee's services on the ground of an irregular appointment resulting from its own procedural lapses?
  • Whether an otherwise qualified civil servant appointed by a competent authority can be made to suffer due to procedural violations committed by the appointing authority?
  • Can an authority take advantage of its own non-compliance with appointment rules to dismiss a temporary employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. and another vs Muhammad Nawaz1996 PLD Supreme Court 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20
  service lawdepartmental examinationpromotionprinciples of natural justiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 10-4-1995, which allowed writ petitions filed by respondents. The respondents, serving as Work Munshies, completed ten years of service and sought promotion to Sub-Engineer (BPS-11). After missing the initial departmental examination due to a lack of notice from the department despite having communicated their intent to appear, the competent Secretary ordered a second examination to be held after a short interval. The respondents passed this examination and were duly promoted. Subsequently, the department cancelled the second examination on the ground that promotion examinations could only be held once a year in November/December, and reverted the respondents. The core legal question concerned the validity of cancelling a duly authorized second departmental examination and subsequent promotions when the candidates were initially deprived of an opportunity through no fault of their own. The Supreme Court held that since the department failed to inform eligible candidates of the first examination, holding a second examination and promoting the respondents upon success was lawful, fair, and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government department can cancel a departmental examination held for employees who were not informed of the initial examination through no fault of their own?
  • Does the failure of a department to notify eligible employees about a promotion examination justify holding a second examination?
  • Whether a promotion order based on a validly held second departmental examination can be legally withdrawn on the ground that such examinations are restricted to once a year?
  Read full judgment →
• Sauliheen and 2 others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-23
  criminal petitionmurdercommon intentionmedical evidenceocular testimonysentence enhancementcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated criminal matter arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and sentences of the petitioners under sections 302/34 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and assault, while dismissing the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the weapon usage and participation of multiple accused, and whether sufficient grounds existed to condone a 79-day delay in filing the petition for enhancement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version as sharp-edged wounds could indeed be caused by spears, and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Furthermore, the court held that the explanation provided for the prolonged delay in filing the complainant's petition was unsatisfactory. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding ocular and medical consistency in criminal trials will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence regarding injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons is inconsistent with the use of spears?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court be interfered with when supported by ocular and medical testimony?
  • Whether illness and ignorance of limitation periods constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a substantial delay in filing a criminal petition for sentence enhancement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz vs The State1996 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-19
  post-arrest bailgrant of leave to appealinterim bailinvestigation innocenceSuppression of Terrorist Activitiesjurisdiction of special court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds of being declared innocent in successive police investigations and because the firearm injury attributed to him was on a non-vital part of a witness's body. However, the case was subsequently transferred to the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, who cancelled the petitioner's bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider that the case prima facie appeared triable by an ordinary court rather than a Special Court, as well as the petitioner's exoneration during successive police investigations. Finding these points to require further consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the petitioner to interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing bail should be granted where the case was prima facie triable by an ordinary court but transferred to a Special Court?
  • Whether the High Court erred in refusing bail without considering the accused's declaration of innocence in successive police investigations?
  • Can interim bail be granted by the Supreme Court upon granting leave to appeal when jurisdictional and factual matters require further consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs The State and 2 others1996 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16
  petition for leave to appealacquittalextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencesection 302 PPCstolen articles recoverychain of circumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the respondents under Sections 302/34, 392, and 404 PPC. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value and standards of proof required for extra-judicial confessions, circumstantial evidence of 'last seen', and recoveries in a murder trial based purely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's acquittal. The Supreme Court held that extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring three-fold proof: that it was made, made voluntarily, and made truly. It observed that it was improbable for the accused to confess before a stranger unable to help them. Further, the 'last seen' evidence was incomplete, failing to form a continuous chain excluding all hypotheses of innocence, and the interference with an acquittal judgment is unwarranted unless the High Court's findings are perverse or unsupported by record.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to establish an extra-judicial confession as a basis for conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Under what circumstances can 'last seen' circumstantial evidence be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • What are the principles governing interference by the Supreme Court in an appeal against a High Court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Muhammad Israr and 3 others1996 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencelocus standiOffence of Zinareduction of sentenceFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Sardar Muhammad, seeking enhancement of sentences of the respondents who were convicted under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi, and sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment along with whipping and fine. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the term already undergone, alongside reducing the whipping and default fine periods. The core legal questions concern the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the appeal without filing a prior revision, and whether reducing the substantive imprisonment to a mere 56 days was just and proper under the circumstances. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, noting the points requiring deeper consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner has a locus standi for filing an appeal for enhancement of sentence while he did not file any revision in the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Whether the reduction of sentence of imprisonment from 12 years rigorous imprisonment to a period already undergone was just and proper in the circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali and others vs Additional Secretary Home and Ta1996 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08
  pre-emptionTalabsMuslim LawProvincially Administered Tribal AreasIslamic Lawpre-emptive rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional Petition regarding a pre-emption claim. The dispute originated from a 1974 land sale, with subsequent litigation initiated by the pre-emptor's successor. The core legal question was whether the requirement to make 'Talabs' (demands) under Islamic Law is a necessary condition for a pre-emption suit, even in areas where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, had not been extended. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that the requirement of making 'Talabs' is a sine qua non for the enforcement of the right of pre-emption recognized by Muslim Law. The Court clarified that this principle applies regardless of whether the claim is brought under statutory pre-emption law or under general Muslim Law. Consequently, the failure of the petitioners to make the requisite demands under Islamic Law effectively extinguished their pre-emptive rights, rendering the High Court's dismissal of their petition legally sound despite the non-extension of the 1987 Act to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas.

  Questions settled

  • Is the making of 'Talabs' a necessary condition for the enforcement of a right of pre-emption under Muslim Law?
  • Does the requirement to make 'Talabs' apply to pre-emption claims in areas where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, is not extended?
  • Does the failure to make 'Talabs' extinguish the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah and anothers vs Muhammad Manzoor and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-12
  specific performancesecondary evidenceattesting witnesseshandwriting expertproof of executioncollusive decreecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and cancellation of a subsequent collusive decree. The plaintiffs (respondents) claimed that the first appellant executed an agreement of sale and a receipt for full consideration, but retained the original agreement, leaving them with only a photocopy. The first appellant denied executing the documents or possessing the original. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the execution of the agreement and receipt was legally proved. The Court observed that the original agreement was not produced, and the handwriting expert confirmed that the receipt did not bear the first appellant's signature. Crucially, the two available attesting witnesses to the documents were never examined by the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that when execution is denied, it must be proved by calling the attesting witnesses or those in whose presence the documents were executed. Speculation by the High Court that the witnesses were 'won over' was unsupported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the execution of a disputed document be held as proved if the available attesting witnesses are not examined by the party relying on the document?
  • Whether a court can presume that attesting witnesses have been won over by the opposing party in the absence of any supporting evidence on the record?
  • Is a decree for specific performance sustainable when the original agreement of sale is not produced and its execution is denied and unproved?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and another vs Fazle Malik and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  civil court jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionWaqf propertieslease cancellationspecial tribunalsremand of suitmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the concurrent orders of the lower courts non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground of the bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 21 of the N.-W.F.P. Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, and remanded the suit for recording evidence after the filing of written statements. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is completely ousted under Section 21 of the Ordinance where the legality and mala fides of an administrative order of lease cancellation are challenged. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that even where the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in favor of Special Tribunals, Civil Courts remain competent to examine whether the acts of such forums are in accordance with law, illegal, or mala fide. The key principle laid down is that the determination of the ouster of civil jurisdiction based on statutory bars often necessitates the filing of written statements and the recording of evidence to resolve controversial facts regarding whether the special authority acted within its legal bounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is completely barred under Section 21 of the N.-W.F.P. Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, when an order passed by the Chief Administrator Auqaf is challenged as illegal or mala fide?
  • Can a Civil Court examine the acts of a Special Tribunal to determine whether they are in accordance with law despite a statutory ouster of jurisdiction?
  • Does the question of the existence of civil court jurisdiction depend upon the resolution of controversial facts requiring the filing of written statements and recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmed Ansari vs The State1996 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-08
  human rights casepolice inactionFIR registrationabsconding accusedmurder investigationclosure of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a human rights petition registered by the Chief Justice of Pakistan upon receiving a copy of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister. The petitioner alleged police inaction, executive failure, and partiality regarding the investigation into the kidnapping and murder of his son. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether appropriate statutory procedures and actions under criminal law were being pursued by the law enforcement agencies. Reports submitted by the police authorities and the Additional Advocate-General revealed that an FIR under Sections 506, 364, 34, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had been registered against accused persons identified during the investigation, and that formal chargesheet had been submitted. However, progress was delayed due to the accused persons absconding. The Supreme Court held that since the necessary statutory provisions were complied with and the legal machinery had been set into motion, no further administrative or judicial directions were required under human rights jurisdiction, ordering the file closed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings in a human rights petition regarding police inaction should be closed once statutory criminal proceedings have been properly initiated?
  • Does the absconding of named accused persons warrant keeping a human rights petition pending when formal investigation and chargesheet have been completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-23
  senioritypromotionsupersession and defermentcivil servantPolice Service of Pakistanlocus poenitentiaeFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeals regarding seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan. The petitioner, initially promoted as an Assistant Superintendent of Police, claimed seniority over the private respondents in the rank of Deputy Inspector-General (BPS-19) based on an earlier gradation list and a Cabinet Secretariat letter reckoning his seniority from the date his junior assumed charge. The core legal question was whether the competent authority was legally empowered to convert the respondents' earlier supersessions into deferments, thereby restoring their original inter se seniority, and whether a published seniority list confers an indefeasible vested right. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority possesses the power under the applicable civil service rules to convert supersession into deferment, and that a seniority list by itself confers no vested right unless backed by a valid, competent order. The court laid down the principle that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to protect an erroneous or unauthorized alteration of seniority that prejudices officers who were historically senior in the lower grade.

  Questions settled

  • Does a published seniority list by itself confer a vested right upon a civil servant?
  • Can the competent authority convert a civil servant's previous supersession into deferment for the purpose of fixing seniority?
  • Is the doctrine of locus poenitentiae applicable to prevent the correction of an erroneous seniority ranking?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin vs The State1996 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-08
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offendermisreading of evidencecriminal appealbail applicationactive participation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that denied post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a juvenile accused of involvement in a car-snatching incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was thirteen years old at the time of the alleged offense, was entitled to bail given the complainant's testimony regarding his specific role. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, specifically the complainant's cross-examination, which indicated that the individuals who remained with the car did not play an active role in the commission of the offense. Furthermore, the Court found that the High Court had misread the evidence by attributing the act of driving the car to the petitioner, a fact not supported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should be granted when the prosecution's evidence, upon careful scrutiny, fails to establish a prima facie case of active participation by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding the role of an accused justify the Supreme Court's intervention in a bail matter?
  • Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail when the complainant's testimony indicates they did not play an active role in the commission of the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 11 others1996 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23
  service appealpromotionsupersessionseniorityreviewfraudCivil Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning seniority and promotion to Grade-19. The core legal question revolves around whether a previous judgment of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court could be reopened or reviewed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud, where the petitioner had earlier been superseded by the Central Selection Board due to suspension and subsequently promoted. The Supreme Court held that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the Court proceeded correctly on the basis of the Central Selection Board's refusal to clear the petitioner at the relevant time, and no error or fraud justified initiating subsequent review proceedings under section 12(2). The key principle laid down is that concurrent or final judicial orders affirming a supersession cannot be reopened under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code, in the absence of established fraud or material misrepresentation in obtaining those judgments, though departmental remedies, if otherwise available under the law, remain unaffected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an earlier judgment of the service tribunal and the supreme court can be reviewed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud based on a supersession by the central selection board?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition seeking review of a service matter preclude the petitioner from seeking relief at the departmental level if otherwise entitled under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad alias Nona vs The State1996 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-14
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationfresh grounds for bailmedical groundssupreme court review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's subsequent bail application. The core legal question was whether a fresh bail application on a new ground, namely subsequent illness supported by a jail medical certificate, could be dismissed merely as a review of a previous bail cancellation order without considering the new ground. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a fresh bail application based on fresh grounds must be considered on its own merits rather than treated as a review of an earlier order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision taking into consideration the medical report of the jail doctor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent bail application on fresh grounds can be dismissed as a review of a previous bail cancellation order?
  • Can a fresh medical report from a jail doctor constitute a fresh ground for bail?
  • How should a court handle a bail application based on new circumstances arising after the dismissal of an earlier petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajawal vs Mst. Saubia Hamid and another1996 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  suit for declarationconsequential reliefpower of attorneypossession of landconcurrent findingsrevision jurisdictionattestation of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a revision petition regarding a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of a land sale. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a suit for declaration with consequential relief when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, and whether a Power of Attorney requires attestation by marginal witnesses when its execution is admitted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that a suit for declaration with consequential relief is not maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Furthermore, the Court clarified that where the execution of a Power of Attorney is admitted and the document does not legally require attestation, the non-production of marginal witnesses does not invalidate the document. The Court found no misreading of evidence or legal infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings, emphasizing that such findings are generally not subject to interference.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration with consequential relief maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land?
  • Does a Power of Attorney require the production of marginal witnesses if its execution is admitted by the principal?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan vs Ghulam Asghar and others1996 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadstatutory compliancecivil revisionright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession by pre-emption. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad as prescribed under Section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the District Judge reversed this, finding that the petitioner failed to perform the necessary Talabs within the statutory period. The High Court affirmed this dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's pleadings and evidence contained material contradictions regarding the date of knowledge of the transaction. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to perform Talb-i-Ishhad within the mandatory two-week period following the knowledge of the sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the right of pre-emption is strictly conditional upon the precise and timely performance of the statutory Talabs, and any failure to adhere to these procedural requirements extinguishes the right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to perform Talb-i-Ishhad within the statutory period extinguish the right of pre-emption?
  • Is the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad strictly required to be in accordance with the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
  • Can a pre-emptor succeed in a suit for pre-emption if there are material contradictions in the pleadings regarding the date of knowledge of the transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Akbar and another vs Gul Akbar and another1996 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-13
  post-arrest bailplea of alibitentative assessmentcapital chargeappreciation of evidenceinjured eye-witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, with leave of the Court, challenged the Peshawar High Court's order rejecting the appellants' bail application in a murder case. The appellants sought bail primarily on the plea of alibi, contending they were incarcerated in Charsadda Jail during the incident, supported by jail records and FIRs. The core legal question was whether the plea of alibi, when raised at the bail stage, necessitates the grant of bail despite the existence of incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the law permits a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage, including a plea of alibi, the court is not bound to grant bail if the prosecution's case is supported by strong evidence, such as the presence of injured eye-witnesses and the occurrence of the incident in broad daylight. The Court affirmed that it generally avoids interfering with High Court bail orders when the trial is imminent and evidence is about to be recorded, to prevent premature appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered during the bail stage in a capital case?
  • Does the existence of a plea of alibi automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's bail order when the trial is ripe for the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Tariqullah vs Haji Amanullah Khan and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  election petitiondisqualificationservice of statutory bodyAfghan Refugees Organizationgovernment controlreturned candidatevoid election
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Election Tribunal regarding the Provincial Assembly election for Constituency FP 73 Dir-I held on October 9, 1993. The returned candidate, Sahibzada Tariqullah, was declared disqualified under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 99(1-A)(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, on the ground that he had served as an Administrator in the Afghan Refugees Organization (A.R.O.), a body controlled by the Government, within the preceding two years. The Election Tribunal declared the entire election void and ordered a fresh election. Sahibzada Tariqullah appealed against his disqualification, while the runner-up, Haji Amanullah Khan, appealed seeking to be declared elected in his place. The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record sufficiently established that A.R.O. was a body controlled by the Government, as its officers were appointed and promoted by the Government, ex-Pakistan leaves were sanctioned by the Governor, and salaries were paid through the Accountant-General. The Court further held that the runner-up could not be declared elected because the disqualification of the returned candidate was not notorious so as to treat votes cast for him as thrown away, and the presence of other candidates precluded such a declaration. Both appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Afghan Refugees Organization is a body controlled by the Government for the purposes of disqualification under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution?
  • Does regulatory supervision of an organization by the government amount to government control under election disqualification laws?
  • Whether a runner-up candidate can be declared elected upon the disqualification of the returned candidate when the disqualification was not notorious?
  • Is it necessary for a candidate to be a civil servant to attract disqualification under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Abdul Latif vs Sardar Khan and others1996 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-13
  local council electionselection petitioninvalid votevoter intentionre-electiontie-breakdrawing of lots
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had ordered a re-election for the post of Chairman, District Council, Musa Khail, following a dispute over invalid votes during the 1992 Local Council Elections. The appellant and respondent No.1 contested the election, where the Presiding Officer declared one of the appellant's votes invalid due to a non-standard mark and subsequently drew lots resulting in a tie-break for respondent No.1. The election tribunal and High Court found the appellant's vote was wrongly excluded, yet the High Court ordered re-election. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in ordering re-election instead of declaring the appellant elected. The Supreme Court held that technicalities should not defeat the voter's intention, and since the appellant's vote was validly cast and secured a majority of seven votes against six, the appellant ought to have been declared elected. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the re-election order and declaring the appellant as elected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a ballot paper can be declared invalid merely because the voter used a mark other than a cross-mark?
  • Can technicalities defeat the intention of a voter and their right to franchise in election matters?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in ordering a re-election instead of declaring the candidate with the majority of valid votes as elected?
  • Are the statutory provisions regarding the marking of ballot papers to be construed as mandatory or directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Safeer Hussain vs Muhammad Jahangir and 3 others1996 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-30
  acquittalleave to appealocular evidencechance witnessmedical evidencemisreading of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were initially convicted for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence or if the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while the High Court made a minor error regarding the statements of certain witnesses, this did not warrant reversing the acquittal. The Court held that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to significant discrepancies between the medical evidence (indicating four shots) and the prosecution version (alleging two shots), the unexplained delay in recording witness statements, and the status of the witnesses as chance witnesses who failed to provide credible reasons for their presence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless there is a compelling misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal if there is a minor misreading of evidence that does not affect the overall conclusion?
  • Does the presence of significant discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Are witnesses who fail to provide a convincing explanation for their presence at the scene of a crime considered chance witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hayat and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-09
  criminal appealacquittal reversalinjured witnessesmisreading of evidencecommon intentionhouse trespassmurderappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed an acquittal order passed by the trial court, convicting the appellants for murder and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting the appellants, given the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the trial court's acquittal was perverse and based on a significant misreading of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the testimony of injured witnesses, whose presence at the scene was indisputable, was highly credible and sufficient to prove the prosecution's case. The Court established the principle that minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate the core truthfulness of a prosecution version. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court is duty-bound to interfere with an acquittal when the trial court's reasoning is shocking and ignores substantial evidence. The appellants' own admission of the occurrence further corroborated their presence at the scene, rendering the trial court’s acquittal legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Is the testimony of injured witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction despite minor contradictions?
  • Does the admission of an occurrence by the accused in their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, corroborate their presence at the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Malik vs The Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-08
  allotment of government accommodationcivil servantservice tribunal jurisdictioninfructuous appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave of the Court against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition regarding the cancellation of the allotment of a government quarter on the ground that the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service and the remedy lay before the Service Tribunal. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether such allotment constituted a term of service in light of prior jurisprudence. During the proceedings, it was brought to the attention of the Court that the appellant had subsequently been allotted a new quarter, a fact acknowledged by the appellant through an occupation report and a subsequent letter to the Estate Officer, though the appellant claimed he was made to sign the documents under pressure and had not yet occupied the premises. The Supreme Court held that the appellant may occupy the newly allotted quarter if he had not already done so, but concluded that the appeal had lost its significance and consequently dismissed it as having become infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the allotment of residential quarters by the government to civil servants constitutes a term and condition of service?
  • What is the effect on an appeal when the grievance regarding the subject matter has been redressed through a subsequent allotment during the pendency of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 1695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15
  interested witnesscorroborationballistic evidencecircumstantial evidencecriminal appealmurderrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the convictions and sentences of three appellants for murder and attempted murder under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the testimony of interested eyewitnesses, which required independent corroboration, was sufficiently supported by circumstantial evidence, specifically the immediate arrest of the appellants at the crime scene and the recovery of weapons matching ballistic reports. The Supreme Court held that while the eyewitnesses were interested due to prior enmity, their testimony was reliably corroborated by the recovery of weapons from the appellants fleeing the scene and the positive ballistic expert reports linking those weapons to the crime. The Court rejected the defense's belated plea that the appellants were arrested from their homes, noting the failure to raise this in their statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the convictions, establishing that circumstantial evidence, such as immediate arrest and forensic matching, provides sufficient corroboration to sustain convictions in cases involving interested witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon if supported by independent circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure to raise a specific defense plea in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken the credibility of that defense at the appellate stage?
  • Is the recovery of weapons and positive ballistic reports sufficient to corroborate the testimony of interested eyewitnesses in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ibne Ali Tirmizi vs Pakistan Water and Power Development1996 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27
  service tribunalremoval from servicemala fidesWAPDAshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant had neither alleged nor proved mala fides in his removal from service. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was unfounded because the appellant had explicitly raised and detailed allegations of mala fides in his grounds of appeal before the Tribunal concerning a named Project Director. The ratio decidendi is that a service tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal on the premise that mala fides was not alleged when the record clearly demonstrates specific pleadings and details of mala fides. The Court accordingly set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits of the allegation of mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal was correct in holding that the appellant had neither alleged nor proved mala fides?
  • Does Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 exclude the judicial scrutiny of mala fides in removal from service?
  • What is the effect of ignoring material pleadings regarding mala fides on the judgment of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Hussain Shah vs The State1996 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-13
  false statementjudicial interferencepolice investigationcontempt of courthabeas corpuscriminal procedureshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order issued by a Judge in Chambers, which directed a show-cause notice to the petitioner regarding potential prosecution for making false statements under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petitioner challenged a judicial order directing a specific police officer to investigate the whereabouts of an alleged abductee and suggesting the transfer of the investigation to senior officers due to concerns regarding police honesty and potential evidence tampering. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s directions constituted an impermissible interference with the police investigation process. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a show-cause notice for false statements made in court proceedings is a legitimate exercise of judicial authority and does not constitute interference with an investigation. Furthermore, the Court determined that directing an officer to secure records and suggesting the transfer of an investigation to ensure impartiality, while leaving the final decision to the relevant police authorities, does not amount to the court usurping the investigative powers of the police. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice for false statements made in court constitute interference with a police investigation?
  • Can a court direct specific police officers to secure records or suggest the transfer of an investigation without usurping police powers?
  • Is a court empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when a party makes a false statement on oath during proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ashraf vs Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem and 11 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01
  civil servicesenioritygradation listlateral entryregularizationlimitationservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of a civil servant. The respondent, initially appointed as a Deputy Secretary via lateral entry, faced termination and subsequent reinstatement. Following his reinstatement, he was promoted to BPS-20. Disputes arose regarding his placement in the gradation list of Secretariat Group Officers. The respondent challenged the gradation list circulated in 1993, seeking restoration of seniority based on previous service and precedents. The petitioners, including the Secretary of the Establishment Division, challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the appeal was time-barred as the respondent failed to challenge earlier gradation lists. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the respondent's appointment was never regularized due to his failure to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination, thereby precluding him from claiming seniority over those who were regularized earlier under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the issues of limitation and the legal requirements for seniority and regularization under the relevant civil service laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by time if the respondent failed to challenge earlier gradation lists?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority over regularized officers if their own appointment was not regularized due to failure to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs The State1996 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18
  criminal appealpost-arrest baildocumentary evidenceprohibitory clausepolice welfare fundembezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-trial or post-arrest bail application by the High Court. The petitioner, a retired Cashier of the Police Department, was accused in an F.I.R. registered under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), with section 409 P.P.C. subsequently added, for allegedly failing to remit deductions to the District Police Welfare Punjab. The core legal question concerned the propriety of withholding bail where the case rests entirely on documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution and challan has been submitted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case relies entirely on documentary evidence already secured and held by the prosecution, and challan has been submitted, the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence weighs heavily in favour of granting bail, notwithstanding the inclusion of offences falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the case depends entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the prosecution?
  • Does the absence of any possibility of tampering with evidence justify granting bail despite the addition of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether the submission of challan and custody of documents with the prosecution are grounds for releasing an accused on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad Sherani vs Commissioner, D.I. Khan Division, Dera Ismail1996 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-19
  admissionengineering universityprospectus interpretationdeduction of marksimprovement examinationcompassionate grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the admission of the appellant to the Engineering Degree Course of the University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, for the 1989-90 session. The core legal question was the interpretation of Paragraph 13 of the University's Prospectus concerning the deduction of marks for multiple attempts and improvement examinations. The appellant, who had failed in his first two attempts at the F.Sc. examination, passed on his third attempt in 1988 and subsequently sat for an improvement examination in 1989. The University deducted 30 marks in total (10 marks for each of the two failed attempts and 10 marks for the improvement attempt). The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging this deduction, but recommended his case for sympathetic consideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Prospectus for the relevant academic year (1989-90) governed the admission, and under its clear terms, 10 marks were to be deducted for each additional attempt and improvement examination. However, the Court endorsed the High Court's recommendation to allow the appellant to complete his degree on compassionate grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of an academic prospectus regarding deduction of marks for multiple attempts apply to failed attempts prior to passing the qualifying examination?
  • Can an applicant claim the benefit of an amended prospectus of a subsequent academic year for an admission sought in an earlier session?
  • Whether the court can endorse a recommendation for sympathetic or compassionate consideration to allow a student to complete their studies despite dismissing their legal claim on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State1996 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Riaz Ahmed, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Atta Muhammad, while acquitting his co-accused, Fateh Sher. The petitioner argued that the prosecution's case was based on tainted evidence, citing inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence, the delay in recording the statement of a key witness, and the complainant's contradictory statements regarding the weapon used by the petitioner. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the lower courts, which had sifted the evidence and extended the benefit of doubt to other co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. The Court found no legal error, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petition for leave to appeal and dismissed it, while granting the petitioner the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated?
  • Does a contradiction in the complainant's statement regarding the weapon used by an accused necessarily invalidate the entire ocular account?
  • Is it legally permissible for a court to sift evidence to convict one accused while extending the benefit of doubt to others in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali alias Rehma vs The State1996 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  criminal appeallimitationcondonation of delayacquittal of co-accusedsifting grains from chaffculpable homicidemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Waris. The petition was filed with a delay of 120 days, and the Court found no sufficient grounds for condonation, rendering it liable for dismissal on limitation alone. On merits, the petitioner argued that his conviction was unsustainable because his co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence and that the offense should have been categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, affirming that courts may sift grains from the chaff to convict specific accused where involvement is established beyond doubt, despite acquitting others. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner's act of arming himself and forcibly retrieving his bullock, resulting in murder, constituted culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does the act of arming oneself to forcibly retrieve property resulting in a killing fall under Section 302 or Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to dismissal if it is filed with a significant delay without sufficient grounds for condonation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs Noora through his Legal Heirs1996 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionpedigree-tableburden of proofcollateral relationshipevidencecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being a collateral of the vendors. The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the High Court had largely upheld the respondent's claim based on the production of pedigree-tables (Exhs. P.4 and P.5). The core legal question was whether the mere production of these documents by counsel, without supporting oral testimony or affirmative evidence establishing a nexus between the pre-emptor and the vendors, sufficed to prove the relationship. The Supreme Court held that the pedigree-tables alone, without testimonial evidence, could not prove the factum of relationship. The Court observed that the respondent failed to substantiate the connection during cross-examination and no witness testified to the correctness or relevance of the documents. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and dismissed the suit, affirming the principle that documentary evidence of pedigree requires corroborative oral testimony to establish kinship in pre-emption cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor establish a superior right of pre-emption solely by producing pedigree-tables without oral testimony?
  • Is the mere production of pedigree-tables by counsel sufficient to prove a relationship between the pre-emptor and the vendors?
  • Does the failure of a pre-emptor to testify regarding the nexus between the pedigree-table and the vendors invalidate the claim of kinship?
  Read full judgment →
• Redco Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Tourism Development Corporation, Punjab and others1996 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11
  entertainment dutystatutory interpretationinclusive definitiontaxationchair-liftleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the levy of entertainment duty on a chair-lift project operated by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the use of a chair-lift falls within the definition of "entertainment" under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, particularly after the 1992 amendment to the definition clause. The petitioner argued that because "chair-lift" was not explicitly included in the amended definition of "entertainment" under Section 2(d) of the Act, the duty was not leviable. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "entertainment" in the Act, which uses the word "includes," is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consequently, the omission of "chair-lift" from the specific list in the amended clause did not imply its exclusion from the scope of the Act. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that the charging section (Section 3) is couched in wide terms, covering payments for admission to any entertainment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the definition of 'entertainment' under Section 2(d) of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, exhaustive?
  • Does the use of the word 'includes' in a statutory definition imply that the list provided is not exhaustive?
  • Does the omission of a specific activity from an amended definition of 'entertainment' imply that the activity is excluded from the scope of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Razz Khan vs Muhammad Mushtaq and another1996 SCMR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationZina-bil-Jabrabductiondelay in statementexercise of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to cancel the post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Sessions Judge, Attock, in a case registered under Section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner contended that the respondent was not entitled to bail because the abductee had leveled allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the respondent was not named in the First Information Report, was not found in possession of the abductee, and the abductee's statement under Section 164 was recorded after a considerable delay during which she remained with her parents. The Court reiterated the principle that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling it are distinct, and once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the considerations for the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are different?
  • Can bail once granted by a court of competent jurisdiction be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Does a delay in recording an abductee's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, during which she remained with her parents, affect the case for cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Saeed Ahmad vs The Controller of Examination, Bahauddin1996 SCMR 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-16
  vested rightuniversity regulationamendment of regulationexamination chanceseducational autonomyintra-court appealsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition against the amendment of a university regulation. The core legal question was whether a student has a vested right to be governed by university regulations as they stood at the time of initial admission, particularly regarding the number of chances allowed to clear an examination. The Supreme Court held that students have no vested right to be governed by original regulations throughout their academic career and that universities possess complete autonomy to amend regulations to improve educational standards. The key principle laid down is that university regulations governing examinations can be validly amended, and such amendments apply to enrolled students provided they have notice before undertaking further attempts, as amendments are necessary for maintaining academic excellence and managing institutional resources.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a student has a vested right to be governed by university regulations as they originally stood at the time of admission?
  • Can a university amend its regulations to withdraw additional chances for clearing an examination?
  • Do universities enjoy autonomy in regulating the conduct of examinations and amending related regulations?
  • Does an amendment to university regulations affecting examination attempts operate retrospectively if it comes into force before a student makes a subsequent attempt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ashiq and 6 others vs The State1996 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-02
  suspension of sentencestatutory baildelay in disposal of appealdiscretion of the courtreasons for refusalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by seven petitioners challenging an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined their application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite their statutory appeal not having been disposed of within two years. The core legal question was whether the High Court was legally bound to record reasons when refusing the statutory concession of bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the grant or refusal of bail under the provision is a matter of judicial discretion, the appellate court is mandatorily required to assign reasons for declining bail. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order for lacking reasons, converted the petition into an appeal, suspended the sentence, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that declining the statutory benefit of bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires explicit reasons by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a convicted person become ordinarily entitled to bail if their appeal is not decided within the statutory period under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an appellate court required to assign reasons when declining bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of an appellate court's failure to give reasons while refusing statutory bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1996 SCMR 1665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  leave to appealfree fightconvictioncriminal appealappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had convicted the petitioner, Ramzan, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court correctly characterized the incident as a 'free fight' and whether the subsequent conviction under Section 302 was legally sound based on that characterization. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the validity of the reasoning employed by the High Court in reaching its conclusion regarding the nature of the occurrence and the resulting conviction. By granting leave, the Court intends to scrutinize the evidentiary basis and the legal interpretation applied by the High Court to determine if the finding of a 'free fight' was justified under the circumstances of the case, thereby necessitating a review of the conviction itself.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the incident is characterized as a free fight?
  • What are the legal criteria for determining if an incident constitutes a free fight in criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and another vs The State1996 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-25
  free fightunexplained injuriesvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblycriminal appealself-defenseocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a High Court judgment concerning convictions for murder and attempted murder following a violent clash between two parties over a land dispute. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused and the complainant party's greater number of injuries necessitated acquittal, and whether the High Court correctly re-evaluated the evidence to find a 'free fight' rather than a planned attack. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings that the incident constituted a 'free fight' where vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could not be established, thus holding individuals liable only for their specific acts. The Court affirmed the principle that whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused creates reasonable doubt depends on the entire gamut of the case, not a single element in isolation, and that the mere fact of one party suffering more injuries does not prove they were the initial aggressors.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused person automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Does the fact that the complainant party suffered a greater number of injuries prove that they were the initial aggressors?
  • Can vicarious liability be imposed when the evidence suggests a free fight rather than a planned attack by an unlawful assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Haroonrashid vs M/s. Utility Stores Cooperative Housing Society1996 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18
  specific performancerejection of plaintmultifariousnesscause of actioncivil procedurerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding the sale of land, recovery of the balance sale price, and permanent injunction against the respondent society. The respondent filed an application for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing insufficient court-fee, time-bar, and violation of agreement terms. The trial court rejected this application, ruling that the court-fee was sufficient and that other objections required evidence. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's revision petition, holding that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was bad for multifariousness. Upon appeal, the petitioner contended that the suit did not suffer from multifariousness and that the trial court's initial decision was legally sound and not subject to interference in revisional proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the plaint was correctly rejected for multifariousness and whether the High Court's intervention in the trial court's order was justified under the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of multifariousness?
  • Is a trial court's refusal to reject a plaint based on factual disputes subject to interference in revisional proceedings?
  • Does a suit seeking specific performance, recovery of price, and permanent injunction necessarily suffer from multifariousness of causes of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahimyar Khan College of Education through Principal and anothers vs Islamia University of Bahawalpur through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others1996 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-29
  educational institutionaffiliationuniversity syndicatenatural justicediscretionary powerconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal concerning the refusal of Islamia University, Bahawalpur, to extend or grant permanent affiliation to various educational institutions due to their failure to rectify deficiencies. The core legal questions relate to whether the termination of provisional affiliation violated natural justice principles and whether the University acted within its lawful discretionary authority. The Supreme Court held that the institutions were given adequate opportunities to explain their positions and remedy defects, and that the University's Affiliation Committee and Syndicate acted properly within their statutory powers. The Court ruled that affiliation is not a matter of right but a discretionary privilege, and private institutions must strictly satisfy prescribed educational standards and statutory requirements. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educational institution can claim affiliation with a university as a matter of right?
  • Does the refusal of a university to grant or extend affiliation without fulfilling required conditions violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Are the superior courts empowered to interfere in the discretionary exercise of a university's power to grant or withhold affiliation under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-01
  criminal appealmurder convictionsudden provocationmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencedefense pleacommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Shaukat Abbas. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with guns, fired upon the deceased due to a motive involving illicit relations. The defense contended that the incident was a single-handed act committed by one accused under sudden provocation upon discovering his sister with the deceased, arguing that the number of injuries was inconsistent with multiple assailants. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, which revealed six distinct injuries with varying trajectories and distances, contradicting the defense's claim of a single shooter. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of corroborating evidence for the defense version, such as blood at the alleged site or injuries to the sister, and highlighted the recovery of multiple crime empties at the scene. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was consistent and reliable, while the defense version was unsupported and improbable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defense plea of sudden provocation can be accepted when unsupported by circumstantial or direct evidence?
  • Does the presence of multiple distinct injuries and crime empties at a crime scene negate a defense claim of a single-handed shooting?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when medical evidence contradicts the defense version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Qhulam Haider through Legal Heirs vs Niaz Muhammad through Legal1996 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-19
  limited ownerevacuee propertyinheritancecustomary lawburden of proofallotment of landpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit concerning the inheritance of land allotted to Mst. Rehmat Bibi in Pakistan in lieu of property abandoned in India. The appellants, claiming as legal heirs of the husband of the deceased allottee, sought a declaration of ownership, contending that the deceased held the property as a limited owner under customary law, thereby restricting her rights and necessitating devolution to the husband's heirs. The core legal question was whether the appellants sufficiently pleaded and proved that the deceased held a limited estate in India, thereby triggering the application of the principle that such land does not become the absolute property of the allottee. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to plead or lead evidence to establish that the deceased held a limited estate in India. The Court affirmed that in the absence of such proof, the property could not be treated as a limited estate, and the appellants' claim to inheritance was unsubstantiated. The principle laid down is that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a limited estate to establish the nature of the original holding in India through pleadings and evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a widow who receives land in Pakistan in lieu of property held in India automatically hold it as a limited owner?
  • Is a party required to plead and prove the nature of the estate held in India to claim inheritance rights based on the status of a limited owner?
  • Can a court grant relief based on the status of a limited owner if the issue was not raised in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Shehryar vs Salah-Ud-Din and 11 others1996 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-12
  leave to appealpartition suitpreliminary decreeconcession of counselmisreading of evidencereversal of trial court decreedeclaration of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Regular First Appeal before the Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which reversed a Senior Civil Judge's decision dismissing a suit for declaration and partition. The High Court had granted a preliminary decree for partition regarding certain suit houses, basing its decision on an alleged concession by counsel that the houses were the legacy of a common ancestor. The petitioner appeared in person and contended before the Supreme Court that no such concession was made, supporting his contention with an affidavit from his appellate advocate, and arguing that the High Court's findings were based on a misreading of the record and pleadings. Upon examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that the contentions were not without substance, as no such admission appeared in the pleadings or evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's judgment and preliminary decree were supported by the evidence and material on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court judgment based on an alleged concession by counsel can be sustained when the record and pleadings contain no such admission?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where a decree of partition is passed without supporting evidence or material on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Gran vs Muhammad Jan and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-12
  dispute concerning landbreach of peaceactual physical possessioncriminal court jurisdictioncivil disputeprevention of breach of peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from an application filed by the appellant under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging apprehension of a breach of peace and seeking to prevent his forcible dispossession from a plot of land. The respondent contended that the plot was state property allotted to him, that he was in lawful possession, and that no apprehension of a breach of peace existed. The Sessions Judge accepted the respondent's revision petition and dismissed the application, a decision upheld by the High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the jurisdiction of a criminal court under Section 145, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked unless there is an imminent danger of a breach of peace. The Court laid down the principle that the primary object of Section 145, Cr.P.C. is the prevention of breaches of public peace, and where no such imminent danger exists, a Magistrate is not required to determine the factum of actual physical possession, as the settlement of property disputes falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal court invoke jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in the absence of an imminent danger of a breach of peace?
  • Is a Magistrate required to determine the factum of actual physical possession under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. if there is no likelihood of a breach of public peace?
  • Which forum has exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to immovable property when there is no apprehension of a breach of peace?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamarullah vs Selection Committee Bolan Medical College, Quetta1996 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-16
  Bolan Medical Collegeadmission policyjudicial reviewprospectusSelection Committeeeducational admissioncogent reasons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court decision regarding admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta. The core legal question was whether the Prospectus requirement for candidates to pass Matriculation and Intermediate examinations from Balochistan (Paragraph 29) is independent of the merit-ranking criteria (Paragraph 40), and whether the High Court could interfere with the Selection Committee's rejection of a candidate. The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 29 is an independent condition not controlled by Paragraph 40. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in interfering with the Selection Committee’s decision, as judicial review is limited to determining if the Committee's assessment of 'cogent reasons' for exemption was perverse. The Selection Committee holds the authority to evaluate whether a candidate's reasons for studying outside the province are justifiable. The key principle established is that admission criteria in a prospectus are binding, and courts should not substitute their discretion for that of the Selection Committee unless the decision-making process is found to be legally flawed or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to pass Matriculation and Intermediate examinations from Balochistan under the Prospectus independent of the merit-ranking criteria?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the Selection Committee's decision regarding admission criteria unless the decision is perverse?
  • What constitutes a 'cogent reason' for an exemption from the requirement to study within the province for medical college admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province through Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and others vs M_s. Husnain Construction Company Limited1996 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10
  arbitration agreementappointment of arbitratorqualification of arbitratorcontractual disputeleave to appealsuperintending engineer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute between the Punjab Province and a construction company regarding the appointment of arbitrators. The core legal question is whether individuals who have retired from their positions as Superintending Engineers remain qualified to serve as arbitrators under an arbitration agreement that specifically mandates the appointment of Superintending Engineers. The petitioners challenged the appointment of two arbitrators, arguing that their appointment was invalid because they had already retired from service at the time of their second appointment by the Senior Civil Judge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter requires a definitive determination on whether the qualification of being a 'Superintending Engineer' is a condition precedent that must be satisfied at the time of appointment, even if the appointees had previously held such positions. The principle established is that where an arbitration agreement prescribes specific professional qualifications for arbitrators, the court must ensure that the appointees meet those criteria at the time of their appointment to maintain the validity of the arbitral process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an individual who has retired from the position of Superintending Engineer be appointed as an arbitrator when the arbitration agreement specifically requires the appointment of Superintending Engineers?
  • Does the qualification requirement for an arbitrator under an agreement apply at the time of the appointment by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Public Health Engineering Circle-I, Gujranwala vs Government of the Punjab1996 PLC (C.S.) 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26
  temporary injunctioninterim reliefcivil servant transferservice tribunal powersdeputationbalance of convenienceirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  These two appeals by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were directed against an interim order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which suspended the operation of a transfer order during the pendency of an appeal. The respondent, a Superintending Engineer, had been transferred and posted as Managing Director of WASA, Rawalpindi, but challenged the transfer on the grounds that the post was unsanctioned, leading to non-payment of his salary, and that he was forced into deputation. The Supreme Court first addressed whether the Service Tribunal possesses the power to issue temporary injunctions. It held that under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, the Tribunal is deemed to be a Civil Court and possesses the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including the power to grant temporary injunctions. However, on the merits of the interim order, the Court ruled that the Tribunal failed to apply the settled principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. Under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, a civil servant is liable to serve anywhere, and administrative transfers should not ordinarily be stayed unless compelling reasons exist. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the interim stay order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction and power to grant interim relief or a temporary injunction during the pendency of an appeal?
  • What legal principles govern the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions in service matters involving the transfer of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant legally object to a transfer and posting under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 if the terms and conditions of service are not varied to their disadvantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and 4 others vs Mst.1996 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28
  leave to appealland allotmentpublic purposeprohibitory orderChief Settlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an allotment of land in favor of the respondents. The core legal question is whether land occupied by the Punjab Forest School under the Forest Department for a public purpose was available for allotment, and whether allotments made after 27-2-1965 violate the prohibitory order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions and related questions, ordering the stay order to continue. The key principle established is that allotments of land made in contravention of prohibitory orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and land dedicated to public purposes require detailed judicial consideration by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land occupied by a government department for a public purpose is available for allotment?
  • Is an allotment of land made after 27-2-1965 sustainable in violation of the prohibitory order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Haji Muhammad Hussain and others1996 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-17
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valueadditional evidenceconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against the dismissal of its appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the Senior Civil Judge's enhancement of land compensation. Land measuring 31 Canals and 1 Marla owned by the respondents was acquired for a general bus stand under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation at Rs. 420 per Marla, which the respondents challenged, leading to a reference where the Senior Civil Judge raised the rate to Rs. 800 per Marla. The Supreme Court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding market value were sustainable and whether the High Court erred in refusing additional evidence. The Court held that the concurrent findings on market value were free of infirmity and that the High Court was justified in rejecting the additional sale-deeds as they were not produced earlier and lacked proximity to the disputed land. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the market value of acquired land can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
  • Is a party entitled to produce additional evidence in the High Court when it failed to show why such evidence was not produced before the trial court?
  • Do sale-deeds relating to land outside the immediate vicinity of the disputed land advance the case for determining market value?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Government Employees Cooperative1996 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15
  cooperative societieswrit petitionalternative remedybiasjudge in his own causeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a writ petition assailing an ex parte order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies removing the respondent from his position as Secretary of the Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the constitutional petition in light of an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the Deputy Registrar acted as a judge in his own cause given his prior electoral contest against the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly entertained the writ petition because the Deputy Commissioner had no role under the Act and the petitioner's prior electoral rivalry compromised his impartiality. The Court affirmed that an alternative remedy does not bar constitutional relief where special circumstances exist, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's declaration that the removal order was without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is available?
  • Does a Deputy Registrar act as a judge in his own cause when passing an adverse order against an official of a cooperative society after previously contesting elections against him?
  • Can the Deputy Commissioner direct the removal of a society's secretary under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Badshah Gul vs Professor Dr. Shafiq Ahmad and 19 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-06
  service lawseniorityinter se senioritycivil servantpost versus gradecadre amalgamationseniority list
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the determination of inter se seniority between Professors following the amalgamation of two teaching cadres, the Khyber Medical College and the Post Graduate Medical Institute. The core legal question was whether seniority should be determined based on the date of continuous regular appointment to the post or the date of grant of a higher grade (BPS-21). The Supreme Court held that the merger notification explicitly mandated that inter se seniority be determined on the basis of continuous regular appointment to the respective posts. The Court clarified that 'post' and 'grade' are distinct concepts; a higher grade granted for financial purposes does not constitute a promotion to a higher post and does not override seniority based on the post held. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the government correctly corrected the seniority list to reflect the date of appointment to the post rather than the date of grade attainment, establishing that seniority is governed by the post held, not the grade.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a higher grade to a civil servant constitute a promotion to a higher post for the purpose of determining seniority?
  • Can the government correct a mistake in a tentative seniority list before it attains finality?
  • Is inter se seniority of civil servants holding the same post determined by the date of continuous regular appointment to the post or by the date of grant of a higher grade?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. M. Muneer Hassan vs The Chancellor, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology_Governor of Sindh, Karachi and another1996 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26
  vice-chancellordoctrine of pleasuretermination of employmentabatement of appealcivil servantservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's Constitution petition against his removal from the post of Vice-Chancellor of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology before the expiry of his four-year term. The appellant was appointed to hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, amendments were introduced via the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, which deemed employees of corporations established by provincial enactments to be civil servants and provided for the abatement of all pending suits, appeals, or applications relating to their terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court examined the effect of these statutory amendments and held that the appellant, as an officer of the University, fell within the definition of a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby causing the pending appeal to abate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to pursue his remedy before the Sindh Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding office during the pleasure of the employer can have his appointment terminated before the expiry of the statutory term?
  • Do pending appeals relating to the terms and conditions of service of a university employee abate upon the enactment of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994?
  • Is an officer of a university established by a provincial enactment deemed to be a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General, AJK & FC Islamabad and 2 others vs Muhammad1996 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-19
  service tribunalquantum of punishmentcompulsory retirementmodification of penaltysupervisory roleleave to appealmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondent's penalty of compulsory retirement to the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The core legal question concerned the scope and extent of the Service Tribunal's power to alter or modify quantum of punishment imposed by departmental authorities in service matters, and whether the Tribunal's decision in this case suffered from arbitrariness or lack of reasoning. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Service Tribunals are final forums of appeal on both questions of law and fact with the inherent power to uphold, set aside, or vary impugned orders, provided that any modification of punishment is supported by cogent reasons meeting standards of reasonableness. The Court laid down the principle that interference by the Supreme Court with a Tribunal's reduction of penalty is warranted only if the Tribunal's order lacks application of mind, suffers from arbitrariness, or fails to give reasonable justification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunals have the power to alter or modify the quantum of punishment imposed by departmental authorities?
  • What are the limitations on the Service Tribunal's power to interfere with factual conclusions and penalties in service appeals?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal modifying a departmental penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Qureshi, Principal, Technical Training Institute, Wah1996 PLC (C.S.) 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-07
  service lawadverse remarkspromotionsupersessionAnnual Confidential Reportleave to appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an officer in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his supersession for promotion. The petitioner had previously secured an order from the Tribunal expunging adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.R.) for 1986 and 1987, which had originally deemed him 'not fit for promotion.' Despite this, the Tribunal subsequently dismissed his appeal concerning his supersession for promotion to BPS-20. The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to consider his corrected A.C.Rs and that a junior officer promoted in his stead lacked the mandatory NIPA course qualification. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, finding substance in the petitioner's contentions that the authorities relied on outdated, expunged remarks and that the junior respondent may have been unqualified for the promotion. The Court held that these issues required further judicial consideration to determine if the petitioner's supersession was legally justified in light of the corrected service record and the eligibility criteria of the promoted junior.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer be superseded for promotion based on adverse remarks that have been subsequently expunged?
  • Is a promotion valid if the officer promoted in place of a senior lacks mandatory qualifications such as the NIPA course?
  • Does the failure of authorities to consider corrected Annual Confidential Reports in promotion decisions constitute grounds for judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Peer Bakhsh and others vs Mst. Anwar Mai and others1996 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-12
  pre-emption suitexecution proceedingsclerical erroramendment of plaintrectification of decreeexecuting court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the decree-holder sought to correct clerical errors regarding rectangle and Killa numbers in both the plaint and the decree-sheet during execution proceedings. The executing court allowed the correction of these errors, a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The petitioners challenged the executing court's jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint after the finalization of the judgment and decree. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Nazir Ahmad and 6 others v. Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCMR 163), examined whether an executing court possesses the authority to rectify clerical mistakes in the plaint and decree-sheet. The Court held that the executing court acted within its jurisdiction in permitting the correction of clerical errors, noting that the present case was on stronger footing than the cited precedent because the decree-holder had explicitly applied for the amendment. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's order and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executing court have the jurisdiction to allow the correction of clerical errors in a plaint after the finalization of a judgment and decree?
  • Can an executing court permit the rectification of a decree-sheet to correct clerical mistakes regarding land particulars?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Islamabad and another vs Riaz Ahmad and 6 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-03
  civil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionwrit jurisdictioneligibility for promotionterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional barArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order directing the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation to fill Assistant Divisional Engineer posts according to specific promotion and recruitment quotas established by S.R.O. 1022(1)/76. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue such a directive, or whether the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, as employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, were civil servants. It further held that the dispute regarding the enforcement of promotion quotas and eligibility for appointment related to the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212. The principle laid down is that matters concerning the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion or appointment are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and the High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction in such service-related disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters concerning the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Is the question of eligibility for promotion a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to disputes regarding the enforcement of promotion quotas for civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and another s vs Riaz1996 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-03
  civil servantjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalterms and conditions of serviceeligibility for promotionconstitutional barwrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment directing the Corporation to fill Assistant Divisional Engineer posts according to specific promotion and recruitment rules. The core legal questions were whether employees of the Corporation are civil servants and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus regarding promotion quotas and eligibility, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, being transferred employees of the Corporation, remain civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that disputes concerning eligibility for promotion relate to terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by Article 212 in favor of the Service Tribunal. The appeal was accepted and the impugned High Court judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation are civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue directions regarding promotion quotas and eligibility of civil servants?
  • Does a dispute regarding eligibility for promotion relate to the terms and conditions of service so as to attract the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is the question of eligibility for promotion distinguishable from fitness or suitability regarding the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan T&T All Staff Union and another vs N.I.R.C. and others1996 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  industrial disputetrade unionreferendumremand orderlocus standiN.I.R.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a long-standing industrial dispute concerning trade union representation and the holding of a referendum, which has been delayed for approximately fifteen years. The core legal question involves the proper execution of a High Court remand order dated 7-3-1989 directing the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) to determine the locus standi of a representative to appear for a union after recording evidence. By consent of all learned counsel appearing in the appeals, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter by directing a Full Bench of three members of the N.I.R.C. to hear and finally dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the earlier remand order, fixing a specific date for hearing and mandating that the issue of locus standi be determined conclusively regardless of the representative's presence or absence, thereby preventing further dismissals for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that remand orders must be strictly complied with and time-sensitive industrial disputes such as union referendums ought to be expedited without procedural delays.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when a specific High Court remand order directs a decision on merits regarding locus standi?
  • Can a question of locus standi be determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission in the absence of the representative whose standing is in question?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others1996 PLC 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-27
  payment of wagesjurisdiction of authoritywage deductionpay fixationindustrial relationsconstitutional jurisdictiondiscriminationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five consolidated appeals arising from disputes over wage deductions and pay fixation within Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving disputed wage calculations, or if such matters must be exclusively pursued under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the Authority is competent to determine wages as defined by the Act, which includes interpreting contracts, rules, or circulars to calculate the correct quantum of wages. However, the Court clarified that the Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving potential wages, such as claims for promotion or wrongful reversion. The Court affirmed that where a worker is already promoted but the employer miscalculates the salary in violation of rules, the Authority has jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction where the department had previously interpreted pay rules in a manner that created discriminatory treatment, violating the principle of equality before the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, have jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding the correct quantum of wages?
  • Can the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, adjudicate claims involving potential wages or entitlement to promotion?
  • Is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, competent to interpret employment contracts and pay rules to determine payable wages?
  • Does the High Court have discretion to refuse interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when departmental action is discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman, Islamabad vs Maqbool Hussain, Reservation and Ticketing Officer, PIA, Lahore-1996 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaycivil servant statusPIAC employeesdepartmental remedypromotion dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the promotion of a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) employee. The core legal questions concerned whether the service appeal was maintainable without exhausting departmental remedies, whether it was time-barred, and whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over PIAC employees. The Supreme Court held that between 15-11-1984 and 2-11-1989, PIAC employees were deemed civil servants under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by virtue of Ordinance LIII of 1984, thereby granting the Tribunal jurisdiction. Regarding limitation, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s discretion to condone delay, finding that the employer’s previous assurances to consider the respondent for promotion upon his return from foreign posting provided a valid basis for the delay in filing. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal’s direction to consider the respondent for promotion was proper, provided it adhered to the Corporation’s service regulations. The key principle established is that during the specified period, PIAC employees held the status of civil servants, and tribunals may exercise discretion to condone delays where specific departmental assurances have caused a legitimate postponement in seeking legal redress.

  Questions settled

  • Were employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, between 1984 and 1989?
  • Can a Service Tribunal exercise discretion to condone a delay in filing an appeal if the employee was acting on assurances provided by the employer?
  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render a service appeal non-maintainable if the record shows such remedies were in fact pursued?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation - through Chairman, Islamabad vs Maqbool Hussain, Reservation and Ticketing Officer, PIA, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23
  civil servantFederal Service Tribunallimitation and condonation of delaypromotionmaster and servantjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 22-6-1993, which directed the appellant to consider the respondent for promotion from 1982. The core legal questions involved whether the service appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable without departmental remedies, whether it was barred by limitation, and whether the rule in Raziuddin's case barred the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that between 15-11-1984 and 2-11-1989, by virtue of statutory amendments adding subsection (3) to section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956, PIAC employees were deemed civil servants under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, making the appeal fully competent. The Court further held that the Tribunal exercised sound discretion in condoning the delay based on un-rebutted assertions regarding departmental assurances given to the employee while on foreign posting. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the direction for reconsideration of promotion subject to the Corporation's service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service appeal filed by the respondent before the Federal Service Tribunal was maintainable without exhausting departmental remedies?
  • Whether the service appeal filed in 1987 regarding an action taken in 1982 was time-barred?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal was competent to grant relief to a PIAC employee in view of the rule in Raziuddin v. Chairman, PIAC?
  • Did the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation hold the status of civil servants between 15-11-1984 and 2-11-1989?
  Read full judgment →