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. 233,147 judgments in total.

• Khalil Ahmad vs Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar and anothers2000 YLR 2318 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-17
  territorial jurisdictioncriminal complaintsecond marriageMuslim Family Laws Ordinancequashment petitionplace of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for quashment challenged the territorial jurisdiction of a Lahore court to entertain a complaint filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The petitioner contended that because the second marriage was contracted and registered in Muzaffargarh, the Lahore court lacked jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates that offences be tried where committed. The core legal question was whether the offence of contracting a second marriage without the requisite permission is triable at the location where the marriage was contracted or where the refusal of permission occurred. The Court held that the offence under Section 6(5) includes the failure to obtain permission from the existing wife. Since the respondent-wife resided in Lahore and the refusal to grant permission occurred there, the violation of the Ordinance took place in Lahore. Consequently, the Lahore court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try the complaint. The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter urgently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of contracting a second marriage without permission under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 occur at the place where the marriage is contracted or where the permission is refused?
  • Does a criminal court have jurisdiction to try a complaint under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 at the place where the first wife resides and refuses permission for a second marriage?
  • Is the right of a wife to file a family suit at her place of residence under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 applicable to the filing of a private criminal complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Goverment of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others2000 PLC (C.S.) 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-17
  service appealPunjab Service Tribunalconstituted benchretirement of memberremand of casemisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the appellant's service appeal against the penalty of reduction in time scale was partly allowed. The appellant challenged the validity of the Tribunal's judgment on the ground that it was heard by a Bench comprising the Chairman and a member, but the judgment was delivered by the Chairman alone after the retirement of the other member. The Supreme Court examined whether a judgment rendered by a single member after the retirement of the co-member of the hearing Bench constitutes a valid decision of the Tribunal. The Court held that a Bench constituted to hear an appeal must remain intact for its decision, and upon the retirement of one member, the remaining member alone cannot legally pronounce the judgment as the Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing, leaving all other grounds open for the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Bench constituted to hear a service appeal cease to exist upon the retirement of one of its members before the announcement of the judgment?
  • Can a remaining member of a Tribunal Bench legally record and pronounce a judgment alone after the retirement of the co-member who heard the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Pervez vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 51 others2000 PLC (C.S.) 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-11
  service appealretrospective inductionlimitationEconomists Groupleave to appealFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning his claim for induction as a Member of the Economists Group from the retrospective date of his regular promotion against an upgraded post, alongside consequential benefits. The Tribunal non-suited the petitioner on the grounds of limitation and the finding that a prior Supreme Court precedent was rendered in personam rather than in rem, thus inapplicable to his case. The core legal questions concern whether the service appeal was barred by limitation and the applicability of the cited Supreme Court precedent to the petitioner's claim for retrospective induction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the efficacy of the Tribunal's observations on both limitation and the applicability of the precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a service appeal claiming retrospective induction into the Economists Group is barred by limitation?
  • Whether a previous judgment of the Supreme Court can be treated as a judgment in rem rather than in personam to form the basis of a precedent in similar service matters?
  • Whether an employee can be inducted into a service group with retrospective effect from the date of appointment to an upgraded post?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Pervaiz and another vs The State2000 YLR 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-31
  corpus delictilast-seen evidencecircumstantial evidencemurderrecovery of blood-stained articlessentence enhancementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed against the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302-B/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentences and setting aside of an acquittal. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the 'last-seen' evidence in a corpus delicti missing case, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence including recoveries, and the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances connecting the appellants to the crime through credible ocular testimony of witnesses who last saw the deceased alive with the accused, recovery of the victim's taxi, and the recovery of incriminating articles and blood-stained weapons upon the appellants' pointation. The court affirmed the convictions, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence and corroborative recoveries were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the missing dead body, and dismissed both the appeals and the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under circumstantial evidence and last-seen testimony when the corpus delicti (dead body) is missing?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of related and interested witnesses regarding the last-seen circumstance is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime?
  • Does an extraordinary delay in sending recovered items for chemical examination render the serologist report and blood-stain evidence legally untrustworthy?
  • Whether the absence of the exact location of eye-witnesses in the site plan of the crime scene creates a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Naveed vs Member, Administration and the Chairman, Pakistan2000 PLC (C.S.) 857 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-12-08
  service tribunaldepartmental inquiryex parte proceedingsenhancement of penaltycompulsory retirementback benefitsnatural justicecross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, an Accounts Officer who had objected to irregular financial transactions regarding the purchase of machinery at a regional centre. Following an ex parte departmental inquiry, the Authorised Officer recommended a minor penalty, but the competent Authority converted it into a major penalty of premature retirement without providing an opportunity of hearing or issuing a notice for enhancement. The Tribunal examined the record and found multiple procedural flaws, including conducting the inquiry behind the appellant's back, recording witness statements improperly in questionnaire form, denying the right of cross-examination, and exhibiting discriminatory treatment contrary to constitutional guarantees. The Tribunal held that departmental proceedings of a judicial nature must strictly adhere to the rules of natural justice and statutory requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned penalty order, directed the reinstatement of the appellant with all back benefits, and permitted the administration to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the law if so desired.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a competent Authority can enhance a minor penalty to a major penalty without issuing a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused civil servant?
  • Does conducting departmental inquiry proceedings at the back of the accused civil servant vitiate the legal validity of the inquiry?
  • Whether recording witness statements in a question-and-answer format without associating the accused or allowing cross-examination violates the requirements of law?
  • Does the singling out of an official for disciplinary action while letting other culpable incumbents in the hierarchy go unpunished constitute discriminatory treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1036 · Sindh High Court · 1999-10-05
  narcotics smugglingbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery evidenceCustoms Actprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Customs Act, 1969, for the alleged smuggling of heroin at Karachi Airport. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant evidentiary contradictions and the absence of independent recovery witnesses. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained and acquitted the appellant. The ratio established that glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence—specifically regarding the number of samples taken, the failure to produce the suitcase as case property, and the implausible assertion that the appellant was traveling internationally without any currency—created substantial doubt. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent and the defense version, provided on oath, remains unchallenged, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the prosecution failed to meet the required burden of proof, necessitating the appellant's immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the alleged contraband container as case property at trial constitute a fatal flaw?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution's evidence regarding the number of samples taken is contradictory?
  • Can an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to challenge the defense version given on oath?
  • Does the lack of independent recovery witnesses in a narcotics case under the Customs Act, 1969, render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore2000 P.C.T.L.R. 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-16
  constitutional jurisdictionalternative remedycustoms seizureshow-cause noticeFIA powersstatutory appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a Constitutional Petition challenging the legality of a show-cause notice and a time extension order issued by the Collector of Customs regarding seized currency. The petitioner questioned the competence of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to act under the Customs Act, 1969, and the validity of the extension of time for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 168(2) of the same Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the availability of alternative statutory remedies, while also commenting on the merits. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the High Court should have declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as an adequate alternative remedy existed through the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequent appeal. The Court held that the FIA possesses lawful authority to act under the Customs Act pursuant to the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, and relevant notifications. The judgment establishes that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked when a specific statutory appellate forum is available.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of an adequate alternative statutory remedy bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Do officers of the Federal Investigation Agency possess the authority to exercise powers of search, arrest, and seizure under the Customs Act 1969?
  • Is a show-cause notice issued under Section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 valid if the time extension was granted under Section 168(2) of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Additional District Judge, Ahmedpur East, District2000 MLD 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-22Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Abdur Rasheed And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 516 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Abdur Rasheed and anothers2000 YLR 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-12
  pre-emption suitdeposit of sale pricestatutory dutyact of Courtcivil revisiondismissal of suitPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns the dismissal of a pre-emption suit due to the plaintiff's failure to deposit one-third of the sale price as mandated by Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The trial court failed to issue an order for this deposit within the statutory thirty-day period following the filing of the suit, yet subsequently dismissed the suit for non-compliance. The core legal question was whether a suit can be dismissed for non-deposit when the court itself failed to pass the requisite order within the mandatory timeframe. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court has a primary duty to order the deposit within thirty days. Since the court failed to perform this duty, it could not penalize the plaintiff for the absence of a deposit. Relying on the principle that the act of the court should not prejudice any party, the High Court ruled that the dismissal was legally unjustified. Consequently, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was remanded for trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a pre-emption suit for non-deposit of the one-third sale price if the court itself failed to order such a deposit within thirty days of the suit's filing?
  • Does the failure of a court to perform a mandatory statutory duty justify penalizing a litigant?
  • Is a court empowered to order the deposit of one-third of the sale price in a pre-emption suit after the expiration of thirty days from the filing of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and others vs The State2000 YLR 698 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20
  triple murderinterested witnesscapital punishmentfirearm expert reportcommon intentioncompensation to legal heirscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentences imposed on Khalid Mehmood, Abid Hussain, and Zahid alias Javaid Iqbal for the triple murder of Mubarak Ali and his two sons, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Ajmal. The prosecution alleged that the appellants ambushed the deceased while they were traveling in a wagon to attend a court hearing regarding pre-arrest bail. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of interested eye-witness testimony, the impact of the acquittal of co-accused, and the appropriateness of capital punishment given the lack of specific injury attribution. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the eye-witnesses' presence was natural, and their testimony was corroborated by the wagon conductor and forensic evidence matching recovered weapons to empty cartridges found at the scene. The Court affirmed the death sentences, emphasizing that in cases of proven murder, no laboured pretext should be used to mitigate sentences. It clarified that while the trial court's imposition of a fine was improper under the relevant statute, compensation was mandatory under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be maintained when no specific injury is attributed to individual appellants in a joint murder case?
  • Is the testimony of interested eye-witnesses reliable when corroborated by forensic evidence and independent witnesses?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of remaining appellants in a murder case?
  • Is a fine imposed under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State2000 YLR 163 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-09
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailstatutory baildelay in appeallife imprisonmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal. The petitioner, convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought relief on the statutory ground that his appeal had remained undecided for over two years since his conviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the delay in the adjudication of his appeal. The Lahore High Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two years, and court records indicated that his appeal was unlikely to be heard for several more years. Holding that the case fell squarely within the ambit of Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates the release on bail of a life convict whose appeal is not decided within two years, the Court allowed the petition. The sentence was suspended, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to bail if their appeal remains undecided for more than two years?
  • Does Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate the release of a convict whose appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Superintending Engineer, Provincial Building2000 PLC (C.S.) 1278 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2000-06-19
  service lawtermination of servicenatural justiceshow-cause noticelocus poenitentiaevested rightprobationerrecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the termination of several employees by the Provincial Building Department following their selection and subsequent joining of duties. The core legal question was whether the department could lawfully terminate the appellants' services without issuing a show-cause notice, based on a directive regarding a revised recruitment policy that arrived after the appellants had already assumed their positions. The Tribunal held that the termination orders were unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice. It ruled that once the appellants had joined their duties, a vested right was created, and the department lacked the locus poenitentiae to unilaterally revoke the appointments. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that even probationers are entitled to a show-cause notice before termination. Crucially, the Tribunal established that a department cannot benefit from its own procedural lapses or irregularities in the recruitment process, particularly when the employees possessed the requisite qualifications and were selected by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the impugned termination orders were set aside, and the appellants were reinstated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department terminate the services of an employee without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent a department from terminating an appointment after the employee has joined duty?
  • Can a department rely on its own procedural irregularities in the recruitment process to terminate an employee's services?
  • Is a show-cause notice required before terminating the services of a probationer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs S.H.O.2000 MLD 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-27
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice proceduredaily diaryunlawful confinementbailiff reportshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition concerns the illegal detention of two individuals, Kashif Mehmood and Abdur Rashid, by the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) at Police Station Ghaziabad. A court-appointed bailiff recovered the detenus from the police station, where they were held without formal arrest records in the daily diary. The S.H.O. claimed Kashif Mehmood was required in criminal cases, though he was not named in the initial F.I.R., and Abdur Rashid was detained without any criminal involvement. The core legal question was whether the police detention was lawful given the failure to record the arrests and produce the detenus before a magistrate within the statutory timeframe. The Court held that the detention was illegal, as the S.H.O. failed to comply with mandatory police procedures regarding arrest documentation and production before a competent court. The detenus were set at liberty, and the S.H.O. was issued a show-cause notice for his illegal conduct. The judgment reinforces the principle that police must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including immediate recording of arrests in the daily diary and timely production of detainees before a magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a police officer to record an arrest in the daily diary render the detention of the accused illegal?
  • Is a detention lawful if the police officer fails to produce the detainee before a competent court within twenty-four hours?
  • Can a police officer justify the detention of an individual by registering an F.I.R. after the court-appointed bailiff has already conducted a raid?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 2000 Labour & Service Cases 30 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and others vs The State2000 YLR 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryspecial oathcriminal investigationvicarious liabilityrole attribution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners, Khalid Mahmood and Hamid Hussain, who were implicated as accused in a murder case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that they were not named in the initial First Information Report, no specific overt act or practical role was attributed to them, and their implication during the investigation was based solely on a 'special oath' procedure. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that their involvement constituted a case of further inquiry. The Court established the principle that criminal investigations cannot be settled or determined based on a 'special oath,' as there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for such a practice. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, criminal cases cannot be resolved through special oaths, rendering any such investigative procedure legally void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal investigation be legally settled or determined based on a special oath?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide for the determination of an accused's guilt through a special oath during investigation?
  • Is the implication of an accused person based solely on a special oath sufficient to deny bail?
  • Does the absence of a specific overt act attributed to an accused in the FIR or investigation warrant a grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal Ghauri vs Allah Ditta, Magistrate. First Class, Mandi2000 P Cr. L J 1084 · Lahore High Court
  quashment of FIRmala fideshoardingPrice Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Actabuse of processSection 188 PPCharassment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking the quashment of an FIR registered against the petitioner for alleged hoarding and traffic obstruction. The core legal questions were whether the possession of twenty-five gas cylinders constituted the offense of hoarding under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, and whether the alleged obstruction of a thoroughfare justified proceedings under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the mere possession of twenty-five cylinders at a district headquarters did not establish hoarding, nor was there evidence of refusal to sell or intent for wrongful gain. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses failed to corroborate the allegation of traffic obstruction, rendering Section 188 inapplicable. The Court established that criminal proceedings initiated without evidence of essential statutory ingredients, particularly when motivated by personal grievances or administrative harassment, constitute an abuse of process and mala fides, warranting the quashment of the FIR to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of twenty-five gas cylinders in a shop constitute the offense of hoarding under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977?
  • Can an FIR be quashed on the grounds of mala fides if the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the charged offenses?
  • Does placing goods outside a shop automatically constitute an offense under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ghouri vs Mrs. Tazeen Choudhry2000 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-16
  default in payment of rentejectmentlandlord and tenantaccumulated rentstatutory interpretationSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the tenant-petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an established practice or mutual understanding of accepting accumulated rent for several months at a time absolves the tenant from the statutory obligation of paying monthly rent by the prescribed date, and whether such acceptance constitutes acquiescence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that statutory requirements regarding the prompt payment of monthly rent must be strictly construed in favour of the landlord, and occasional acceptance of accumulated rent or waivers of default do not negate the mandatory provisions of law without a proper, voluntary mutual agreement. The Court affirmed that a practice of accepting delayed or lump-sum payments cannot override the express statutory command of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the practice of accepting accumulated rent by a landlord constitutes a valid waiver of the statutory requirement to pay monthly rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can an agreement for deviation from the mode of rent payment prescribed by law be presumed merely from occasional acceptance of delayed or lump-sum payments?
  • How are provisions relating to the payment of rent in rent restriction statutes to be construed in light of the restrictions placed on landlords' rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Bashir vs Muhammad Zubair and others2000 SCMR 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-10
  condonation of delaylimitationtime-barred petitionleave to appealnegligence of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The petition was filed with a delay of 86 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, citing the failure of their counsel to inform them about the status of the case as the primary justification. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the request for condonation of delay. The Court held that the negligence or failure of a counsel to inform a client about the outcome of a case does not constitute a valid or sufficient ground for the condonation of a significant delay in filing an appeal. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay, dismissed the petition as time-barred, and declined to grant leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that litigants are responsible for pursuing their cases diligently and that the inaction of legal counsel is not an automatic excuse for procedural delays.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a counsel to inform a client about the status of a case constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of being time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ashraf vs Azad Government and 2 others2000 PLC (C.S.) 1088 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-21
  civil servantremoval from serviceforged medical certificateunauthorized absenceprobationary periodefficiency and discipline ruleswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against his removal from service as a Meter-Reader. The appellant was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence from duty and for submitting a forged medical certificate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the allegations stood admitted due to lack of a replica, and further that his services could be terminated without notice during his probation under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976. The core legal questions involved the competency of the initiating authority under the efficiency rules and the legality of termination during probation. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the procedural requirements of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 were substantially complied with, but modified the termination to removal from service, ultimately dismissing the appeal as the appellant's conduct disentitled him to relief. The key principle laid down is that substantial compliance with disciplinary rules suffices, and a probationer's service can be dealt with in accordance with the law governing civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings of misconduct can be initiated by an authorized officer under the direction of the competent Authority?
  • Can the services of a civil servant on probation be terminated without notice under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976?
  • Whether substantial compliance with the relevant efficiency and discipline rules satisfies procedural requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid alias Khala vs The State2000 YLR 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-22
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtocular account and medical evidencedelayed FIRcontradictory evidencemurderhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Pakistan Penal Code for culpable homicide and hurt. The core legal questions involve assessing the credibility of the ocular account, the impact of delays in the post-mortem examination, contradictions between medical and testimonial evidence, and the reliability of recoveries and motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant delays, contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, weak motive, disbelieved recoveries, and the doubtful character of the injured witness. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the release of the appellant and his co-accused. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony contradicts medical evidence, recoveries are disbelieved, and material delays taint the FIR, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the contradiction between ocular account and medical evidence is sufficient to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Does a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when recoveries are disbelieved and the alleged motive is weak?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Abbas vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Okara and 5 others2000 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
• Khair Din vs O.S.D., Central Record, Lahore(K.L.R. 2000 S.C. 230) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-05
  suo motu reviewconcurrent findings of factabandonment of claimsettlement authoritiescivil petition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a suo motu review petition filed by the petitioner, Khair Din, against the dismissal of his civil petition for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its suo motu review power to interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the petitioner had abandoned his original claim of allotment by subsequently applying to purchase the suit land and surrendering his rights to a third party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having abandoned his original stand and sought to purchase the land instead, and having surrendered his rights in favour of his nephew, could not be permitted to reassert his original claim through suo motu proceedings. The court laid down the principle that suo motu powers will not be exercised in favour of a party who has altered their stance, abandoned their original remedy, and pursued alternative proceedings regarding the subject matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will exercise suo motu review powers when the petitioner has abandoned their original claim of allotment by applying to purchase the suit land?
  • Can a petitioner reassert an original claim of allotment through suo motu proceedings after surrendering their rights in the disputed land in favour of another person?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Din through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Sharif and others2000 YLR 2029 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-12Read full judgment →
• Khadim Rasul vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 others2000 YLR 2256 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-14Read full judgment →
• Khadim Rasul vs Muhammad Hussain & 2 others2000 C.L.R. 2003 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-09Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 383 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-03
  acid throwingmurderdeath sentenceappreciation of evidenceinjured witnessmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court against the appellant for offences including murder, house trespass, hurt by dangerous weapons, and causing hurt by corrosive substance. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the establishment of motive in a case of acid throwing, the reliability of injured and related witnesses, and the justification for the death penalty and concurrent sentences. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony from natural witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and the appellant's own admissions regarding motive. The court affirmed the convictions, upheld the death sentence due to the brutal and callous nature of the crime involving permanent disfigurement and death of a child, but modified the fine to compensation under the relevant criminal procedure provisions and granted the benefit of concurrent sentences. The key principle laid down is that where ocular accounts of injured witnesses are natural and consistent, and supported by medical evidence and inherent probabilities regarding motive, convictions for heinous offences like acid throwing and murder are to be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Can inferences regarding motive be drawn from normal human conduct and probabilities under the law of evidence?
  • Does a slight delay in lodging the first information report vitiate the prosecution case when the delay is explained by the medical condition of the victims?
  • Whether the commission of a brutal crime involving acid throwing constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting a lesser sentence than death?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Station House Officer, Police Station Abdul Hakim, District Khanewal and 2 others2000 MLD 793 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs S.H.O. etc.2000 C.L.R. 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad and others2000 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-13
  land revenuesanction of mutationappellate jurisdictioncoram non judiceDistrict CollectorAssistant Commissionersupervisory jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by Khadim Hussain challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Hafizabad. The Tehsildar had sanctioned Mutation No. 16332 under Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 in favour of the petitioner based on a bequest by his deceased uncle. Respondent No. 4 directly approached the District Collector alleging corruption, whereupon the District Collector cancelled the mutation and directed an inquiry. The core legal question was whether the District Collector possessed statutory or supervisory jurisdiction to directly entertain an application against an order sanctioning a mutation, bypassing the appellate hierarchy. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 read with Notification dated 1-7-1991, appellate powers of the Collector were conferred on the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or take direct action against the Tehsildar's order, rendering the impugned order coram non judice. The petition was accepted and the impugned order set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a District Collector have jurisdiction to directly entertain an application challenging an order sanctioning a mutation under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Can a senior officer in a administrative hierarchy exercise statutory appellate or supervisory jurisdiction outside the specific statutory procedure?
  • Which revenue forum has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order of mutation passed by an Assistant Collector/Tehsildar?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Revenue Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-13Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain And Another vs Muhammad Idrees And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-21Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and another vs Muhammad Idrees and 4 others2000 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-21
  revision petitionpre-emptionsuperior rightco-sharerprinciple of sinkerconcurrent findingslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners was decreed. The core legal questions involve the validity of concurrent findings of fact regarding superior pre-emptive rights, the competency of an attorney to depose on behalf of plaintiffs, the application of the principle of sinker where a co-sharer vendee associates strangers, and the effect of non-framing of an issue regarding limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and admissions by the defendants were unexceptionable, that an attorney's statement is of equal evidentiary value when authority is undisputed, that the principle of sinker was correctly applied, and that the suit was filed within limitation. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding superior pre-emptive rights can be interfered with in revision?
  • Does the statement of an attorney carry the same evidentiary value as that of the principal when the attorney's authority is not challenged?
  • What is the effect of a vendee with a superior right associating strangers in a transaction under pre-emption law?
  • Does the non-framing of an issue regarding limitation vitiate the trial when the suit is filed within time and no effort was made by the objector before the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and 6 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1525 · Sindh High Court · 2000-02-07
  quashment of proceedingspreventive proceedingsbreach of peaceprocedural irregularityissuance of warrantsCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicants seeking the quashment of preventive proceedings initiated against them under Sections 107 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pending before the Mukhtiarkar and First Class Magistrate, Kotri. The core legal question was whether the trial Magistrate acted in accordance with the law when initiating these proceedings and issuing warrants against the applicants. The Court held that the proceedings were a nullity and an abuse of the process of the Court. The ratio of the decision is that proceedings under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, require specific, definite information regarding the conduct of the individuals involved, which was absent in the police report. Furthermore, the Court established that a Magistrate must assign specific reasons for issuing warrants instead of summons in the first instance, and must ensure that a copy of the order under Section 112, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, accompanies the process served upon the accused, as mandated by Section 115, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Failure to adhere to these procedural safeguards renders the proceedings invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a Magistrate to assign reasons when issuing warrants instead of summons in proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must a copy of the order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be served along with the summons or warrants issued to the accused?
  • Does a police report under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require specific details of the acts of each individual to be legally sufficient for taking cognizance?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and 5 others vs Sher Afzal and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 974 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-11-11
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblycommon objectcounter versionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Shariat Court which had dismissed the bail plea of appellants Nos. 1 to 5 and cancelled the bail previously granted to appellant No. 6 by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved the determination of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Penal Code at the bail stage, the effect of unexplained injuries on the accused persons, and the propriety of cancelling bail already granted. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the question of vicarious liability cannot be inflexibly determined at the bail stage without deeper scrutiny, and where specific lesser roles are attributed alongside injuries sustained by certain accused persons, they are entitled to bail. Consequently, the appeal was partly accepted, releasing specific appellants on bail while maintaining the denial of bail to those attributed with fatal or active firearm roles. The key principle laid down is that while vicarious liability may apply at the bail stage if pre-planning is evident, tentative assessment of individual roles and cross-inquiries regarding injuries sustained by the accused warrant the grant of bail where common object cannot be conclusively established without trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Penal Code can be definitively determined at the stage of bail?
  • Is an accused person entitled to bail when specific lesser roles are attributed and injuries sustained by the accused during the same incident are admitted by the investigating agency?
  • Can bail once granted by the trial court be set aside by an appellate court without strong and justifiable reasons?
  • Does the resort to ineffective firing by certain accused persons disentitle them from the concession of bail at the pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and 3 others vs Fazal Din2000 CLC 1359 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-21Read full judgment →
• Kh. Ghulam Qadir and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif and 11 others2000 MLD 2047 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2000-05-08
  restoration of suitdismissal in defaultsufficient causeinherent powersnecessary partynon-appearance of counselrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, directed against the order of the High Court, arises out of a suit for recovery of damages which was dismissed in default due to the non-appearance of the plaintiffs and their counsel. The District Judge initially restored the suit under inherent powers, observing that plaintiffs should not suffer for counsel's negligence despite the absence of a sufficient cause. Upon revision, the High Court set aside the restoration order, holding that sufficient cause was mandatory under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and could not be bypassed by invoking section 151. The Supreme Court addressed whether a suit dismissed in default can be restored without establishing sufficient cause and whether inherent powers override specific statutory provisions. The Court held that satisfying the requirement of 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 9 is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with under section 151, as inherent powers can only be invoked when there is no specific provision covering the eventuality. Additionally, the appeal was found incompetent due to the non-impleadment of a necessary party. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit dismissed in default can be restored under Order IX Rule 9 without establishing a sufficient cause for non-appearance?
  • Can a court exercise inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a specific statutory provision governs the eventuality?
  • Does a date fixed for recording the statements of the parties constitute a date of hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to implead a necessary party in an appeal arising from a joint and inseparable decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income2000 PTD 2369 · Kerala High Court · 1998-08-27
  defective returninvalid returncondonation of delayincome tax returnstatutory auditassessment yearrevised return
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the validity of an income tax return filed by a public sector undertaking. The core legal question is whether an Assessing Officer possesses the power to condone a delay in rectifying defects in an income tax return and treat it as a valid return under the proviso to section 139(9) of the Act if the rectification occurs after the expiry of the initially allowed period but before the assessment is made. The court held that the Assessing Officer retains the discretion under the proviso to section 139(9) to condone the delay and treat the return as valid at any point before the assessment is finalized, provided the rectification is completed before that time. The key principle laid down is that the penal consequences of treating a defective return as invalid do not preclude the Assessing Officer from exercising discretionary power to condone a delay in curing defects, provided the request and rectification are made prior to the completion of the assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Assessing Officer condone a delay in rectifying defects in an income tax return after the expiry of the originally allowed period?
  • Does the power of the Assessing Officer to treat a defective return as valid subsist until the assessment is made?
  • What constitutes a defective return under section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
  • Whether the failure to accompany a return with a mandatory audit report renders the return invalid ab initio without opportunity for cure?
  Read full judgment →
• Kerala Clays and Ceramic Products Ltd. vs Tax Recovery Officer and others2000 PTD 2049 · Kerala High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 2040 · Kerala High Court · 2000-11-24
  income taxadvance taxinterest on refundtribunal dutystatutory interpretationreference case
  Summary & questions settled

  This income-tax reference case arises from a dispute regarding the payment of interest on excess advance tax paid by the assessee company for the assessment year 1983-84. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is bound to consider all provisions of section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including section 214(1-A), even if the assessee failed to explicitly refer to subsection (1-A) during oral arguments. The court held that the Tribunal is indeed bound to take note of and apply the relevant statutory provisions existing at the time, notwithstanding the failure of a party to bring them to its notice. The ratio laid down is that statutory authorities and tribunals have an independent legal duty to apply the correct and relevant provisions of the applicable tax statute to determine correct liabilities and entitlements, a principle extendable from established Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding assessing officers. The reference was accordingly answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Tribunal is bound to consider all the provisions of section 214 including section 214(1-A) when the assessee did not refer to section 214(1-A) in the course of the argument?
  • Does a tribunal or tax authority have a duty to apply relevant statutory provisions even if the assessee fails to claim or refer to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Keerthi Liquors vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others2000 PTD 1274 · Kerala High Court · 2000-07-16Read full judgment →
• Kazim Hussain vs The State2000 YLR 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-10
  post-arrest bailZina-bil-Jabarfurther inquirydelay in FIRprosecution case doubtHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Kazim Hussain, who was charged under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for an alleged incident of Zina-bil-Jabar. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in reporting the incident, the exoneration of the principal co-accused by the investigating officer, and the fact that the complainant and prosecutrix had previously testified to the innocence of another co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution case against the petitioner had become doubtful due to the inconsistent investigation and the collapse of the prosecution's narrative regarding the co-accused. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where the foundational allegations of a prosecution case are rendered doubtful by the exoneration of principal offenders or by the complainant's own conduct in testifying to the innocence of co-accused, the case against the remaining accused warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling them to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exoneration of principal co-accused by the investigating officer provide sufficient grounds for granting bail to the remaining accused?
  • Can a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is bail appropriate when the complainant and prosecutrix have previously testified to the innocence of co-accused in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Hussain vs The State and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 793 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-10-15
  post-arrest bailattempt to murdertorchlight identificationmedical evidenceplea of alibiprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a bail application after being refused by the lower courts in a case registered under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a night-time murderous assault wherein the injured victim sustained multiple pellet injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the contentions regarding night identification, medical inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration, and a plea of alibi supported by affidavits and statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner was directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific motive, supported by torchlight identification, the injured person's statement, and corroborative medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that in cases of causing injuries, the statement of the injured person supported by medical evidence is ordinarily sufficient at the bail stage to establish a prima facie link, and a plea of alibi supported by affidavits cannot outweigh direct evidence before being evaluated by the trial court upon full evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of an injured witness supported by medical evidence is sufficient at the bail stage to establish a prima facie link of the accused with the offence?
  • Does a plea of alibi supported by affidavits and statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 outweigh direct ocular evidence for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. for an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Kawther Grain (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1140) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Limited through General2000 CLC 1182 · Sindh High Court
  Public trustAdvocate-General consentCivil revisionMosque managementPlaint verificationSpecific ReliefProcedural defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an appellate court order that set aside a trial court decree regarding the management of a mosque. The plaintiff society sought a declaration that a trust created by the defendants concerning the mosque was illegal and sought control over its administration. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was barred by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for lack of Advocate-General consent, whether the failure to produce the trust deed with the plaint rendered the suit incompetent, and whether the plaint was properly verified. The High Court held that the mosque, being a place of worship for the public, constituted a public trust, thereby making the Advocate-General's consent a mandatory condition precedent under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the plaintiff’s failure to produce the trust deed with the plaint, as required by procedural rules, and the lack of proper authorization for the signatory of the plaint, were fatal to the suit. The revision was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is the consent of the Advocate-General a mandatory condition precedent for a suit involving a public trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to produce a document required by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at the time of filing the plaint render the suit incompetent?
  • Can a suit be maintained if the person verifying the plaint lacks specific authorization from the plaintiff organization?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashmir, through its Chief Secretary, Azad Government, Muzaffarabad2000 C.L.R. 798 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  natural justiceopportunity of hearingtermination of servicetampering of recordwrit jurisdictioncivil serviceprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, a government employee, was removed from service following allegations that his initial appointment and subsequent promotion were secured through the tampering of official records. The High Court set aside the removal order, holding that the termination was illegal because it was passed without providing the respondent an opportunity to be heard, and ordered his reinstatement with full benefits. The Government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal question was whether an employee can be removed from service based on allegations of misconduct, such as record tampering, without a prior inquiry or opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the termination order, affirming the principle that an order carrying a permanent stigma against an individual cannot be passed without observing the principles of natural justice. However, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, ruling that while the termination was procedurally flawed, the competent authority remains entitled to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent, provided that a proper inquiry and an opportunity of hearing are granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government employee be removed from service based on allegations of record tampering without being given an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does an order of removal based on allegations of misconduct that carry a permanent stigma require a prior inquiry?
  • Can a court, while quashing an illegal termination order, allow the competent authority to proceed afresh against the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim vs The State2000 YLR 359 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-16
  post-arrest bailrobberydacoityidentification testco-accused statementfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 62 of 1997 registered under sections 382 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Attock, concerning an incident of house robbery and dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where his name was absent from the initial F.I.R., he was not nominated in the subsequent complainant application, no identification parade was held, and no recovery of robbed articles was effected from him, having been implicated solely on a co-accused's statement. The Lahore High Court held that these circumstances rendered the petitioner's involvement a matter for further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that implication by a co-accused without supporting recoveries, identification, or initial nomination warrants further probe and the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated solely on the statement of a co-accused without any recovery or identification test?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. and subsequent investigative applications make the case one for further probe under bail provisions?
  • Whether failure to conduct an identification parade of an un-nominated accused provides grounds for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Shah and 21 others , vs Zoor Bacha and 21 others2000 CLC 793 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-09-28
  constitutional petitionP.A.T.A. RegulationJirga awardforest royaltyconsent decreerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the order of the Home Secretary which set aside the concurrent decrees in favor of the petitioners regarding a share in forest royalty under the P.A.T.A. Regulation and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the ground that the Jirga members did not belong to the local area. The core legal question was whether the Home Secretary could validly set aside a Jirga-based decree and remand the matter when the Jirga had been constituted with the express consent of both parties. The court held that since both parties had consented to the composition of the Jirga and the matter was settled based on a compromise and unanimous Jirga recommendation, the revisional order of the Home Secretary was illegal and without lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that an appellate or revisional authority cannot interfere with a consent-based Jirga award and decree where the parties unequivocally agreed to the constitution of the Jirga.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Home Secretary can set aside a Jirga-based decree on the ground of improper local representation when the Jirga was constituted with the express consent of both parties?
  • Can extraordinary relief through a constitutional petition be granted when a matter is settled through consent and compromise before a Jirga?
  • Whether an appellate authority is justified in remanding a case after concurrent findings of lower forums based on a unanimous Jirga recommendation?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Khan vs Hurmat Khan and anothers2000 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-24
  specific performanceagreement to sellleave to appealreadiness and willingnessconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal and affirmed the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract based on an agreement to sell dated 21-2-1980. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner-plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, particularly regarding an application submitted to the Sub-Registrar on the date fixed for completion. The Supreme Court held that the evidence concerning the petitioner's willingness to perform by moving the application before the Registrar had not been properly attended to by the lower forums. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the evidence led by the petitioner on this issue and ordered that status quo be maintained in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness defeats a suit for specific performance?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower courts fail to properly attend to material evidence regarding a party's presence and willingness before the Sub-Registrar?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux vs The State2000 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-26
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailmurderinstigationabscondenceexercise of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, which declined to grant him pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 201, and 114/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner instigated his brother to murder the deceased over a property dispute. The petitioner argued that his involvement was based on false allegations and police hostility, pointing to a Constitution petition filed by his brother against a police officer. The Supreme Court observed that the First Information Report was registered before the High Court issued notice in the Constitution petition, thereby weakening the plea of malice. The Court held that the grant or refusal of bail depends on the facts of each case and that the petitioner, having failed to surrender to the trial court after the rejection of his bail by the High Court, was not entitled to the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plea of police malice for obtaining pre-arrest bail can be sustained when the criminal case was registered prior to any court notice being issued in the accused's petition against the police?
  • Does the failure of an accused to surrender before the trial court after the rejection of pre-arrest bail by the High Court disentitle them to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail?
  • Are the legal considerations for the grant of bail identical to those for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux Sangri and 4 others vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate2000 PLC 423 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-26
  service tribunalconstitutional petitionseniority disputeexclusive jurisdictionretrospective applicationmaster and servantmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, working as Guards in Pakistan Railways and having been promoted from lower ranks, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the dismissal of their grievance application and appeal regarding a seniority dispute with direct recruits by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained constitutional jurisdiction over service matters concerning employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government after the enactment of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Sindh High Court held that by virtue of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, employees of such bodies are deemed to be in the service of Pakistan for the purpose of seeking a remedy before the Service Tribunal, and that this provision applies retrospectively. Consequently, the court ruled that the petition was not maintainable as exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that service disputes involving employees of entities covered under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 must be adjudicated exclusively by the Service Tribunal, ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over service matters of employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 apply retrospectively?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 maintainable in service matters falling within the domain of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh alias Abdul Karim and 2 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1402 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-24
  murder referencecriminal appealbenefit of doubttorchlight identificationcapital chargeappreciation of evidencedefence pleaacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a murder reference and criminal appeal challenging the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Sher Khan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, torchlight identification, and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts, noting that identification during a dark night by means of a torch was improbable, material witnesses were withheld, and recoveries were uncorroborated and unreliable. Reversing the trial court's judgment, the High Court laid down that the failure of an accused to prove a defence plea does not shift or reduce the heavy burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification of accused persons in a dark night by means of a torch is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to substantiate a defence plea relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is a conviction under a capital charge sustainable when the ocular account is inherently improbable and uncorroborated by forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali alias Fauji vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 103 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryF.I.R. substitutionLalkaramedico-legal examinationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Karamat Ali, was not initially named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) but was subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement, replacing another accused, Zafar, who was originally alleged to have raised a Lalkara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his late implication and the nature of the allegations against him. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the prosecution's attempt to substitute the petitioner for the original accused was questionable, particularly as the alleged injury on the petitioner's lip was not supported by a medico-legal examination. Furthermore, the role attributed to the petitioner was limited to raising a Lalkara. The Court established the principle that where the implication of an accused is based on a late substitution and the specific evidence supporting that presence (such as an injury) is unverified by medical examination, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the late substitution of an accused in a supplementary statement, where the initial F.I.R. named a different person for the same role, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the absence of a medico-legal report for an alleged injury a relevant factor when determining the credibility of an accused's presence at the scene of the crime?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the only role attributed to them is the act of raising a Lalkara?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain vs The State2000 SCMR 1627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-14
  criminal petitionleave to appeallast seen evidencemurderacquittal of co-accusedcircumstantial evidencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the convict Karam Hussain challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Hazoor Ahmed. The trial court had convicted the petitioner along with two co-accused based on "last seen" evidence, motive, medical evidence, and recoveries. While the High Court acquitted the two co-accused, it dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained solely on "last seen" evidence and motive, particularly when co-accused facing similar charges were acquitted and recoveries were subject to conflicting evaluations. The Supreme Court held that a fit case for granting leave to appeal was made out to examine the sustainability of the conviction under these circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence, the sustainability of a remaining accused's conviction based on circumstantial evidence like "last seen" and motive requires closer examination by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained on "last seen" evidence and motive when co-accused facing the same allegations have been acquitted?
  • Can contradictory findings by the High Court regarding the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries form a valid basis for upholding a murder conviction?
  • Whether a case for leave to appeal is made out when the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and suspicion?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Din vs Administrative Officer, Piac, Lahore Airport, Lahore and another2000 PLC 495 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1999-08-18
  unfair labour practicelimitation perioddismissal from servicemisconducttrade union activitiesservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order passed by a Single Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which dismissed the appellant's petition challenging his dismissal from service. The appellant, a former Loader with the respondent, was dismissed in 1982 for misconduct following an inquiry. He alleged that his termination was motivated by trade union activities, victimization, and unfair labour practice, citing that similarly situated co-workers were reinstated via a Review Board recommendation. The respondent contended that the petition was hopelessly time-barred, having been filed seventeen years after the dismissal, and that the dismissal followed due process. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable given the significant delay and whether the appellant had established a case of unfair labour practice. The Commission held that the petition was hopelessly time-barred and that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations of unfair labour practice. Consequently, the Commission affirmed the dismissal of the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter as no unfair labour practice was established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition challenging dismissal from service filed after a lapse of seventeen years is maintainable?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to hear a petition where no case of unfair labour practice is established?
  • Is a recommendation by a Review Board binding on the employer regarding the reinstatement of a dismissed employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Bakhsh and another vs Mst. Saira Bibi2000 MLD 318 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• Karachi Water and Swerage Board through Managing Director vs Mairajuddin and 2 others2000 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-20
  Fatal Accidents Actnegligencecontributory negligencedamagesmaintainability of suitlegal heirsrepresentative capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following the death of a three-year-old child who fell into an uncovered manhole maintained by the petitioner, the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the petitioner liable for negligence and rejecting the defense of contributory negligence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the subsequent High Court Appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact regarding liability. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the plaint incorrectly included grandparents as legal heirs, which conflicted with the Muslim Law of Inheritance and the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The Supreme Court held that the suit was filed by the father, who was a rightful legal heir and a beneficiary under the Act. The Court affirmed that the inclusion of additional, non-entitled persons in the plaint did not invalidate the suit's maintainability or competence, as the action was brought in a representative capacity for the benefit of the rightful heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit filed under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 be dismissed solely because the plaint incorrectly lists persons who are not legal heirs as beneficiaries?
  • Does the inclusion of non-entitled persons in a plaint as legal heirs affect the maintainability of a suit filed in a representative capacity?
  • Is a water and sewerage board liable for damages if a child dies due to an uncovered manhole under its maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Water and Sewerage Board through Managing Director vs Mairajuddin2000 MLD 112 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Karachi Transport Corporation vs Income Tax(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 417) · Sindh High Court · 1999-09-24Read full judgment →
• Karachi Transport Corporation through Secretary vs Qaisar Ali and another2000 CLC 121 · Sindh High Court
  fatal accidents actdamagesnegligencequantum of damagespublic functionarymotor vehicle accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several consolidated High Court Appeals arising from suits filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by legal heirs of persons who died in a tragic bus accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of an employee of the appellant, Karachi Transport Corporation. The core legal questions pertained to whether negligence was proved on the part of the appellant's driver and whether a court can award damages exceeding the specific amount claimed in the plaint. The Sindh High Court held that the evidence sufficiently established negligence and that a court cannot award an amount higher than the specific sum claimed and restricted by the plaintiff in the pleadings. The Court further emphasized that public functionaries should act in aid of justice rather than frivolously litigating genuine claims. Consequently, the appeal concerning the excessive decree was modified to match the claimed amount, while the remaining appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award damages in a suit exceeding the specific amount claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint?
  • Whether a public functionary is justified in prolonging litigation against genuine claims arising from fatal accidents?
  • Does overtaking and falling off a bridge constitute sufficient proof of rash and negligent driving under the Fatal Accidents Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs Lawari and 4 others2000 PLD Supreme Court 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-10-22
  limitationcondonation of delaysufficient causewrong forumpecuniary jurisdictionfirst appealcoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited arises from a judgment of the Balochistan High Court dismissing its Regular First Appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merits. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause existed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court, given that the appellant had previously pursued the appeal before the District Judge due to a lack of jurisdictional clarity and the conduct of the courts and opposing parties. The Supreme Court held that while section 14 of the Limitation Act strictly applies to suits and applications rather than appeals, the principles underlying it may inform section 5, and that pursuing an appeal in the wrong forum can constitute 'sufficient cause' if done in good faith with due care and caution, free of negligence. The Court laid down the principle that where an appellant's choice of a wrong forum is influenced not merely by mistaken counsel advice, but also by the active entertainment of the matter by the wrong court and the opposing parties' failure to object, sufficient cause is established for condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings of an appeal?
  • Does filing an appeal in the wrong court on mistaken legal advice alone constitute sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Can the time spent prosecuting an appeal before a wrong forum be excluded or condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act as sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited vs Lawari and 4 others2000 C.L.R. 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-10-22
  limitationcondonation of delaysufficient causepecuniary jurisdictionwrong forumgood faithdue diligenceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the Baluchistan High Court's dismissal of the appellant's Regular First Appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant had initially filed its appeal in the District Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, following the same erroneous practice previously adopted by the respondents in the same litigation. The core legal question was whether the time spent prosecuting an appeal in a wrong forum could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, given that Section 14 of the Act technically applies only to suits. The Supreme Court held that while Section 14 does not strictly apply to appeals, the principles of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 allow for condonation if the appellant acted in good faith and with due diligence. The Court ruled that the appellant's reliance on the District Court’s erroneous practice of entertaining such appeals constituted 'sufficient cause' for condonation. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent prosecuting an appeal in a court lacking jurisdiction be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals?
  • Does the filing of an appeal in a wrong forum due to the court's own erroneous practice constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority through Director- General having office2000 PLC 368 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-03-18
  jurisdiction of Labour Courtcivil servant statusKarachi Development Authorityservice tribunalgrievance petitionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a decision of the Sindh Labour Court, which had entertained a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by an employee of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The core legal question was whether the Labour Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the service-related grievance of a KDA employee, or if such jurisdiction was ousted by the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, and related legislation declaring KDA employees to be civil servants. The Tribunal held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, as the employee fell within the category of a civil servant subject to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the initial application and the subsequent appeal were not maintainable. The judgment establishes the principle that employees of the Karachi Development Authority are deemed civil servants under the relevant service tribunal statutes, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts in matters concerning their terms and conditions of service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a grievance petition filed by an employee of the Karachi Development Authority?
  • Are employees of the Karachi Development Authority considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act?
  • Does the amendment to the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, regarding the status of corporation employees, oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority and 2 others vs Taj Mahal Nursery and 3 others2000 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-21
  Civil RevisionAppellate JudgmentPoints for DeterminationMandatory ProvisionsRemandAppraisal of EvidenceCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court in a suit for declaration and injunction. The core legal question was whether the appellate judgment complied with the mandatory requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Upon review, the High Court observed that the appellate court failed to frame points for determination and neglected to discuss the evidence or the trial court's findings. The Court held that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 are mandatory, requiring the appellate court to set out points for determination, record decisions thereon, and provide reasons based on an objective appraisal of evidence. Because the impugned judgment lacked these essential elements, it was deemed contrary to law. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision, set aside the appellate judgment, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision to be rendered within three months. This ruling reinforces the necessity for appellate courts to strictly adhere to procedural requirements to ensure judicial accountability and transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory for an appellate court?
  • What are the essential requirements for a valid judgment by a First Appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an appellate judgment be set aside if it fails to frame points for determination and discuss the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Bus Owners Association (Regd.) And Other vs The FederationK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 98 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kapil Mohan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 1902 · Supreme Court of India · 2000-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Perveen vs The State2000 YLR 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-16Read full judgment →
• Kanpur Income-Tax Bar Association and another vs Union of India and others2000 PTD 2630 · Allahabad High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Kaniz Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station City, Chiniot, District Jhang and anothers2000 YLR 300 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-14Read full judgment →
• Kanhiayalal vs Commissioner.of Income-Tax.2000 PTD 1843 · Rajasthan High Court · 2000-08-06Read full judgment →
• Kamran Shaukat vs Hamid Mahmud, A.S.I., Police Station, Liaqatabad, Lahore and others2000 YLR 2930 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-29Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ali and anothers vs The State2000 YLR 3008 · Sindh High Court · 1999-12-31
  post-arrest bailco-accused statementabscondenceidentification parademurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by Kamran Ali and Muhammad Khalid, who were arrested for an offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the primary evidence connecting the accused persons to the crime is a disclosure statement made by a co-accused during police interrogation, and where no identification parade was conducted, notwithstanding allegations of abscondence. The Sindh High Court held that the disclosure statement of a co-accused is generally inadmissible and insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction, and that mere abscondence alone is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused has established a meritorious case on merits. The court laid down the principle that the lack of direct or admissible connecting evidence, combined with the absence of identification tests, tilts the case toward granting bail, and that the element of abscondence must have a nexus with the commission of the offence rather than serving as an absolute bar to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the sole evidence against the accused is the disclosure statement of a co-accused?
  • Does abscondence alone serve as a sufficient ground to decline bail if the accused otherwise has a good case on merits?
  • Is a confession or disclosure made by a co-accused during police interrogation admissible as sufficient basis for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamalam Rajendran vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 3260 · Madras High Court · 1998-03-24
  reassessmentescaped assessmentvaluation reportreason to believejurisdictionincome-taxwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a writ petition challenging a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, proposing to reopen a completed assessment and reassess income under section 147 on the basis of a valuation report obtained from a departmental valuer. The core legal question is whether a valuation report obtained after the completion of an assessment can constitute a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment due to a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts, thereby conferring jurisdiction to issue a reassessment notice. The court held that a valuation report is merely an opinion of a third party and cannot substitute the Assessing Officer's independent 'reason to believe', nor can a completed assessment be reopened merely on the basis of such an opinion or a change of opinion. The court ruled that the impugned notice lacked the necessary jurisdictional facts and was issued without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a valuation report obtained post-assessment does not constitute valid material or information to form a 'reason to believe' under section 147 for reopening a completed assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a completed assessment be reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961 solely on the basis of a post-assessment valuation report?
  • Does a valuation report furnished by a departmental valuer constitute 'reason to believe' for the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under section 148?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act when foundational jurisdictional facts are lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal Kishore & Co. and 2 others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 727 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-05-24
  income tax appealappellate tribunal jurisdictionmemorandum of appealcancellation of registrationtax assessmentscope of appellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several miscellaneous civil cases arising from income tax disputes where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to set aside findings or orders in the absence of a specific appeal or grounds of objection raised by the Department. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by interfering with orders that had attained finality without a formal appeal or specific grounds of objection being raised by the Department. Relying on the statutory framework, the Court emphasized that the Commissioner must direct an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that an appellant cannot urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal without leave of the Court. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the Tribunal exceeded its authority by disturbing findings that were not challenged by the Department, thereby rendering the consequential orders unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the absence of an appeal filed by the Department?
  • Is the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal permitted to decide on grounds of objection not raised in the memorandum of appeal without obtaining leave of the Court?
  • Does the requirement for a specific objection under Section 253(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 preclude the Tribunal from disturbing findings not challenged by the Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalu Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others2000 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-03Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Bim and another vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, D.G.2000 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Akhtar vs Fazal Moor and others2000 MLD 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-09
  revision petitionsecondary evidenceadmissibility of documentscertified copywillremand of caseburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent regarding the inheritance and ownership of a property based on an alleged Will executed in his favour. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court partially accepted the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The core legal question revolves around the admissibility and proof of a private document (a Will) through secondary evidence (a certified copy) when the original was claimed to be part of the revenue record, without fulfilling the preconditions required under the law of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a certified copy of a private document cannot be received as secondary evidence unless the loss, destruction, or non-production of the original is duly established and proper permission to lead secondary evidence is granted. The court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to produce the original Will or establish its loss in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a certified copy of a private document forming part of a public record can be received in evidence as secondary evidence without proving the existence and loss of the original?
  • Can oral evidence be allowed to prove a transaction reduced to writing when the original document has neither been shown to be lost nor properly summoned with permission for secondary evidence?
  • Whether an appellate court can reverse a finding on the admissibility of a document without addressing the foundational requirements for leading secondary evidence?
  • What is the duty of the trial court when an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of a document tendered in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaloo and 3 others vs Hassab Bakhsh and 3 others2000 YLR 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-02
  pre-emptionpre-emption decreevesting of titlecollusionpleadingscivil revisionexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated cases involving pre-emption decrees where conditional rights were granted to multiple claimants. The core legal question is whether a second decree-holder can claim the suit land if the first decree-holder, having complied with the court's deposit requirement, subsequently withdraws the money or settles with the vendee. The Court held that under Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, title to the property vests in the first decree-holder immediately upon the deposit of the pre-emption money within the stipulated time. Once title is acquired, the decree-holder is free to deal with the property as they deem fit, and subsequent withdrawal of funds or private settlements with the vendee do not invalidate the title or revive the rights of the second decree-holder. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that allegations of collusion must be supported by specific particulars in the pleadings, as general assertions are insufficient. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate decision, affirming that the first decree-holder’s compliance finalized the title, precluding the second decree-holder’s claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does title to property vest in a pre-emptor immediately upon the deposit of pre-emption money in accordance with a court decree?
  • Can a second decree-holder claim the suit land if the first decree-holder, having complied with the deposit requirement, subsequently withdraws the money or settles with the vendee?
  • Are general allegations of collusion sufficient to invalidate a pre-emption decree without specific particulars in the pleadings?
  • Does a pre-emption decree create title even if it is not formally put into execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaka Sayal vs The State and others2000 YLR 749 · Sindh High Court · 1999-12-10
  cancellation of bailmurderfurther inquirymedical and ocular conflictmisuse of baildelay in lodging FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arose from an application filed by complainant Kaka Sayal seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the Sessions Judge Nawabshah in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had granted bail primarily on grounds of an unexplained conflict between ocular and medical evidence, a five-hour delay in lodging the FIR, and admitted previous enmity. The High Court considered whether bail was granted improperly on flimsy grounds without establishing reasonable grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the five-hour night delay was satisfactorily explained, existing enmity served as a motive, and alleged medical-ocular conflicts could not be resolved without trial evidence or serve as the sole ground for bail in capital offences. Furthermore, the respondents had misused their bail by issuing threats to witnesses. Accordingly, the High Court cancelled the bail and directed that the accused be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an alleged conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence can be the sole ground for granting bail in a murder case without trial examination?
  • Can bail be granted on the plea of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific finding that no reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
  • Whether the misuse of bail concession through threatening witnesses constitutes a sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Kadermind Khan vs Sahib Khan and others2000 MLD 138 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
• Kabir Khan vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 942 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-12-09
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsinvestigation authoritypersonal searchprohibitory clauseC.I.A. staff
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail petition filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 105 grams of heroin from his person. The petitioner challenged the denial of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, arguing that the search violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that the offense did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the C.I.A. staff lacked the legal authority to conduct the investigation. The Court rejected the argument regarding Section 103, clarifying that the requirement to join respectable persons from the locality applies only to searches of a 'place,' not a person. However, the Court accepted the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of investigative authority of the C.I.A. staff, citing Supreme Court precedent that only an Officer Incharge of a Police Station or authorized personnel may investigate cognizable offenses. Consequently, the Court held that the investigation was improperly conducted, entitling the petitioner to bail as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement to join respectable persons from the locality under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the personal search of an individual?
  • Do C.I.A. personnel have the legal authority to investigate a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years considered a rule rather than an exception?
  Read full judgment →
• K.V.Reddy and another vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and another2000 PTD 943 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• K.T. Thomas vs Tax Recovery Officer and another2000 PTD 1913 · Kerala High Court · 2000-10-08Read full judgment →
• K.P.T. Progressive Workers Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions and others2000 PLC 376 · Sindh High Court · 1999-09-17
  trade union registrationcancellation of registrationindustrial relationswrit jurisdictionalternative remedylabour courtnatural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions cancelling the registration of the petitioner union. The matter was referred to a referee judge following a split decision between two judges regarding the legality of the cancellation and the maintainability of the writ petition given the availability of an appellate remedy under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question concerned whether the Registrar could summarily cancel a union's registration under Section 10(3) without a proper inquiry and whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction despite the existence of an alternative remedy. The Court held that the Registrar acted without lawful authority and in hot haste by failing to conduct a bona fide inquiry into whether the union had actually ceased to exist. The Court emphasized that for violations under Section 10(1) and (2), the Registrar must act as a complainant before the Labour Court, not as an adjudicator. It further established that the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience, not law, and does not bar judicial review where an order is patently illegal or passed without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Unions cancel a union's registration under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, without holding a proper inquiry?
  • Is the Registrar of Trade Unions authorized to adjudicate and cancel a union's registration for contravention of statutory provisions, or must they file a complaint before the Labour Court?
  • Does the availability of an appellate remedy under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, absolutely bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What is the legal status of the Registrar of Trade Unions when acting under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• K.M.C. vs Manzoor Hussain Shah and another2000 PLC (C.S.) 73 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-21
  abatement of appealservice tribunalcivil servantrevisional jurisdictioncorporation employeeterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order by the Additional District Judge declaring that an appeal filed by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) against a civil court decree had abated. The core legal question was whether the enactment of the Sindh Services Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 1994, which deemed corporation employees to be "civil servants," necessitated the abatement of pending appeals and whether the Corporation retained a right of appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the appeal abated by operation of law upon the commencement of the amending Act. It clarified that while the appeal abates, the underlying decree is not extinguished. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the term "a party" in the relevant statutory proviso encompasses the Corporation, granting it the right to approach the Service Tribunal. The key principle established is that when a statute is extended to a new class of persons, the original statute's commencement date is synchronized with the extension date, ensuring the aggrieved party is not left remedyless upon the abatement of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abatement of an appeal under the Sindh Services Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 1994, result in the automatic abatement of the underlying civil suit?
  • Does the term 'a party' in the proviso to section 6 of the Sindh Services Tribunal Act 1973 include the Corporation, thereby granting it a right of appeal to the Tribunal?
  • When a statute is extended to a new class of persons, how is the commencement date of the original statute determined for the purpose of abatement?
  Read full judgment →
• K. Venugopalan Nambiar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessment)and another2000 PTD 59 · Kerala High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• K. V. Sathyanarayana Raju vs Union of India and another2000 PTD 1461 · karnataka High Court · 2000-06-16Read full judgment →
• K. N. Oil Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 696 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 2000-07-09Read full judgment →
• K. Mahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 437 · Kerala High Court · 2000-09-09Read full judgment →
• K. Bhagavatheeswaran vs Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and another2000 PTD 2720 · Madras High Court
  professional misconductchartered accountantfundamental rightsfee regulationtax auditarbitrary restrictionright to practice professionInstitute of Chartered Accountants of India
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a chartered accountant, challenged two notifications issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The core legal questions were whether the Institute could, by regulation, restrict the number of tax audit assignments a member may accept in a financial year and whether it could mandate a minimum fee structure for audit services. The Court held that both notifications were unconstitutional and illegal, ordering them to be quashed. It found that the Institute’s power to regulate professional conduct does not extend to artificially restricting the volume of professional work or controlling the fees charged by professionals. The Court reasoned that such restrictions infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a profession under Article 19(1)(g) and violate the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution. The notifications were deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, lacking a rational nexus to the regulatory objectives of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, as professional fees and workload are matters of individual professional discretion rather than subjects for blanket regulatory control.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India restrict the number of tax audit assignments a member may accept in a financial year?
  • Does the regulation of professional conduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, empower the Institute to fix minimum fee structures for audit services?
  • Are notifications restricting the volume of professional work and mandating minimum fees for chartered accountants violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
  Read full judgment →
• Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax2000 PTD 3179 · Gujarat High Court · 2000-04-17Read full judgment →
• Justice (Rtd.) Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Exchief Election2000 YLR 2092 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2000-04-28
  review petitionscope of reviewnew point in reviewinterim reliefSupreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a review petition filed by the former Chief Election Commissioner, Justice (Rtd.) Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan, seeking the reversal of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal questions involve whether a new point, specifically regarding the competency of the Chief Secretary to file the appeal and additional documents concerning administrative practices, can be raised for the first time in a review petition, and whether the factual basis regarding the possession of the disputed car underpinning the previous judgment remains unchallenged. The court held that a new point not raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal cannot form the basis of a review petition, and since the petitioner failed to challenge the finding that the car's physical possession had already been taken away, the review petition lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that the scope of review is strictly limited and a party cannot introduce new arguments or documents that were not advanced during the original hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a new point that was not raised at the time of the hearing of an appeal be raised for the first time in a review petition?
  • Does the failure to challenge the factual basis of an interim relief order preclude a party from succeeding in a review petition?
  • Can additional documents not produced during the original appeal proceedings be considered in a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Rasheed and others vs Sultan Muhammad and others2000 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-12
  property disputeidentification of propertyconcurrent findingsevacuee propertyrent proceedingstitle adjudicationres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves civil appeals arising from a dispute concerning the correct identification, description, and title of urban properties (shops) located in Abbottabad, which previously underwent changes in numbering and ownership following evacuee migrations. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in disturbing concurrent findings of fact regarding property identity based on prior rent proceedings, and whether a Rent Controller's incidental observations on tenancy can conclusively determine a question of title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, reiterating that a Rent Controller's findings cannot conclusively adjudicate upon genuine disputes of title, which fall outside the scope of rent jurisdiction. The Court established that concurrent findings based on settlement and municipal records regarding property identity should not be lightly disturbed, and that previous rent litigation does not operate as res judicata on pure questions of title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to conclusively determine a genuine question of title between a landlord and tenant?
  • Can findings given in rent proceedings operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular civil suit involving a serious dispute over the title and identity of property?
  • Is a High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact recorded by two lower courts based on misinterpretation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Rasheed and another vs Sultan Muhammad and others2000 C.L.R. 1488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-02-14
  property identificationconcurrent findingsrent proceedingsquestion of titleevacuee propertycivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appellants' suits regarding the identification and ownership of certain commercial properties (shops) in Abbottabad. The core legal questions centered on the correct identification and boundaries of the disputed properties following changes in municipal numbering, and whether findings in prior summary rent proceedings could conclusively determine a question of title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the judgments and decrees of the trial and first appellate courts. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the true identity of the properties were supported by reliable documentary and oral evidence, and reiterated the principle that questions of title cannot be validly and finally decided by a Rent Controller in summary rent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller conclusively decide a question of title in summary rent restriction proceedings?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in disturbing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below without proper legal justification?
  • Does a change in municipal numbers of a property affect its true historical identity established through settlement and revenue records?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid and 2 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1510 · Sindh High Court · 2000-01-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryevidentiary contradictionsFIR credibilityindependent witnessesexplosive substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997/98. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the prosecution's evidence and the circumstances of the alleged incident. The applicants argued that the prosecution's case was doubtful due to contradictions in the FIR regarding identification, the absence of independent witnesses in a crowded area, the lack of recovery of weapons from the applicants, and the failure to send alleged explosives for chemical examination. The Court held that the case against the applicants required further inquiry, noting the absence of injuries despite allegations of direct firing, the lack of independent witnesses, and the failure to recover spent cartridges from the police's own weapons. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicants, establishing the principle that where prosecution evidence is riddled with significant contradictions and lacks corroboration from independent sources in a public place, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to cite independent witnesses from a crowded public place of occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' when the FIR contains contradictory statements regarding the identification of the accused?
  • Is bail appropriate when the prosecution alleges direct firing at police officials but no injuries are sustained and no spent cartridges are recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs The State and 2 others2000 P Cr. L J 639 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-10-22
  post-arrest bailminoritysodomyprohibitory clausemedical boardage determinationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged sodomy of a minor. The petitioner contended he was a minor (under sixteen years) and relied on a school certificate, while also challenging the medical evidence regarding penetration. The Court, after referring the petitioner to a medical board, determined his age to be 15-16 years. The core legal question was whether minority status confers an automatic right to bail and whether the evidence warranted relief. The Court held that being under sixteen does not entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right, and each case must be decided on its own facts. Finding sufficient grounds connecting the petitioner to the offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that judicial discretion must be exercised based on the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does being under the age of sixteen years entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
  • Does an offense punishable with life imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a medical board's assessment of age binding for the purpose of determining minority in bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State2000 YLR 951 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-01-13
  concurrent sentencesseparate trialsdistinct offencesinherent powersarms ordinanceharabahends of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was registered upon a reference from the High Court of Baluchistan, seeking to make the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant in two separate cases—one under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and another under section 17(3) of Harabah read with section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code—run concurrently. The core legal question was whether sentences awarded in distinct, unrelated trials at different times for separate offences can be ordered to run concurrently under section 397 or section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the application, holding that where an accused has been convicted at separate trials for distinct and unconnected offences committed at different times and places, and where no legal or constitutional provision or double jeopardy principle is violated, the court's discretionary power to order concurrent sentences should not be exercised. The key principle laid down is that inherent or statutory powers to make sentences run concurrently must be exercised sparingly and only where necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent illegality, rather than for separate, unrelated offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentences awarded in separate trials for distinct offences committed at different times can be ordered to run concurrently?
  • Can powers under section 397 or section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be exercised to make sentences concurrent for unrelated crimes?
  • Does the prohibition against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to distinct offences tried separately?
  Read full judgment →
• Judicial-I), Muhammad Aslam and 3 others vs Sardar Muhammad and 32000 MLD 41 · Board of Revenue · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Judicial-I) Sher Muhammad vs The State2000 MLD 755 · Board of Revenue · 1999-10-12Read full judgment →
• Judicial-I) Muhammad Sadiq and another vs Additional Commissioner2000 MLD 757 · Board of Revenue · 1999-10-23Read full judgment →