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. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Saqlain and 6 others vs Siraj Khan1999 YLR 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another1999 YLR 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleemullah Khan vs National Construction Company1999 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem-II vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 20 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 671 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1315 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan and others1999 P Cr. L J 332 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Abdul Sattar and 3 others1999 YLR 193 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Chotia, Advocate vs Zafar Iqbal Owasi, Advocate, Bahawalnagar and 4 others1999 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionbar association electionappeal committeeinterim reliefquorumpakistan bar council
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council suspending the order of the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council which had declared the petitioner elected as President of the Bar Association, Minchanabad. The core legal question was whether the Chairman of the Appeal Committee sitting singly was competent under the relevant rules to admit an appeal and grant interim relief without the participation or circulation among the other members of the Committee. The Lahore High Court held that under the Pakistan Bar Council Appeal Rules, 1986, an appeal and grant of interim relief must be dealt with by the Committee consisting of three to five members, and decisions must be taken by a majority view or through circulation among members, leaving no room for the Chairman acting alone. The Court laid down the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for a thing to be done, it must be done in that exact manner, and all other modes stand excluded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council can sit singly to admit an appeal and grant interim relief?
  • What is the prescribed manner for the Appeal Committee to pass orders regarding the admission of an appeal and the grant of interim relief?
  • Does the unavailability of other members authorize the Chairman of the Appeal Committee to act alone in violation of the statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and another vs The State1999 SCMR 2250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-24
  leave to appealself-defencerelated witnessesappreciation of evidencemurder convictiondefence versioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioners' convictions under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the courts below erred in rejecting the petitioners' plea of self-defence and whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses should be discarded due to alleged enmity. The Supreme Court held that the defence version was an afterthought, noting that the defence witness failed to contact the police despite claiming injuries, and the medical evidence was ambivalent. Regarding the eye-witnesses, the Court affirmed that mere relationship does not invalidate testimony, especially when the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and no significant prior enmity was established. The Court concluded that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and that the prosecution case was reliable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that related witnesses are credible absent proof of enmity and that self-defence claims require credible corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of an eye-witness to the complainant automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be accepted when the defence witness failed to report injuries to the police?
  • Is a prompt F.I.R. a significant factor in determining the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs Zulfiqar Ali, Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 872 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid and 5 others vs Nazir Hussain and another1999 YLR 1688 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sagheer and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 962 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-25
  post-arrest bailextortioncrimes against societyterrorismlaw and orderjudicial discretioncriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with firing upon police officers, obstructing public duty, and engaging in forcible extortion in Karachi. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, arguing that the offenses did not fall within the prohibited clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as they carried sentences of less than ten years, and noting the absence of incriminating recoveries or identification parades. The State opposed the application, citing the applicant's status as a hardened criminal and the terrorized state of the locality preventing independent witnesses. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that courts cannot remain oblivious to the prevailing law and order situation and the rise in crime. The court affirmed the principle that in exceptional cases involving crimes directed against society at large—such as terrorism and extortion—bail may be declined even for offenses carrying less than ten years' imprisonment. This decision aligns with the precedent that courts must exercise caution when dealing with criminal acts that threaten the broader public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be denied for offenses carrying less than ten years' imprisonment in exceptional circumstances?
  • Are crimes directed against society at large a valid ground for refusing bail?
  • Should courts consider the prevailing law and order situation when adjudicating bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Begum Noor1999 CLC 1356 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Akhtar Ahmed and anothers1999 MLD 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 2 others vs Haji Pirdad Khan and another1999 YLR 2518 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar Butt vs The Election Tribunal and 5 others1999 MLD 2793 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1999 SCMR 2672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-18
  leave to appealappraisal of evidencechance witnessesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealF.I.R. inconsistenciesmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the incident, was convicted by a Special Court for Speedy Trials for the murder of a student. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerns the propriety of the High Court's appraisal of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the impact of the acquittal of a co-accused on the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant's initial F.I.R. omitted the role of the co-accused, which contradicted later trial allegations, and noted that other eyewitnesses appeared to be chance witnesses. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring that judicial findings align with established principles governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly where inconsistencies exist between the F.I.R. and subsequent trial testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on inconsistencies in the prosecution's case necessitate a re-evaluation of the evidence against the remaining accused?
  • Can a court rely on the testimony of witnesses whose presence at the scene of the crime is not satisfactorily explained and who appear to be chance witnesses?
  • Does an omission in the F.I.R. regarding the specific role of a co-accused undermine the credibility of the complainant's testimony during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State and others1999 MLD 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Saddar, Arifwala, Pakpattan and others1999 P Cr. L J 1786 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Senior Personnel Manager, Fauji Fertilizer1999 PLC 206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs S.H.O. Police Station, Naseerabad, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 88 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs S.H.0.1999 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Ashiq and 7 others1999 YLR 1227 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Judge, Family Court,Kabirwala and 4 others1999 YLR 830 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement1999 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Rauf1999 MLD 2592 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Aziz1999 YLR 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Other vs Mahnda And Other ,K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabtain vs Government of the Punjab, Education1999 PLC (C.S.) 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabtain vs Government of Punjab Education DepartmentK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rustam And 6 Others vs Muhammad Malik And 18 Other1999 CLC 1406 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Malik And Another vs The Deputy Settlement1999 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and anothers vs The State1999 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-06
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancestender agepaternal influencecriminal appealimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the appellants, Muhammad Riaz and his father Ghulam Rasool, for murder. Leave to appeal was previously granted limited to the question of sentence. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the award of the death sentence to both appellants was justified in the circumstances, particularly given the tender age of the principal accused and the paternal influence involved. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants based on credible ocular testimony, but partly allowed the appeal by converting the death sentence of both appellants to imprisonment for life. The Court laid down the principle that the tender age of an offender coupled with the likelihood of having acted under the dominant influence of a father who raised the incitement (lalkara) constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the substitution of the death penalty with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the tender age of an accused and the influence of a father constitute mitigating circumstances for converting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can the absence of weapon recovery from one of multiple co-accused affect the quantum of sentence in a capital case?
  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by an independent witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 3 others vs Asghar Ali and another1999 SCMR 2618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-22
  public nuisanceobstruction of public wayconditional orderSection 133 Cr.P.C.concurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which had challenged concurrent orders of a Magistrate and a Sessions Judge regarding the removal of an obstruction in a public way. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate's order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was sustainable when the petitioners failed to contest the conditional order, which subsequently became absolute. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' failure to appear and contest the conditional order, combined with an admission by one of the petitioners regarding the existence and long-term use of the path, rendered the challenge meritless. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had already initiated civil litigation for the same relief. The Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and distinguishing the present case from precedents where the factual matrix differed. The principle established is that a party cannot bypass the statutory procedure for contesting a conditional order under Section 133, Cr.P.C., and subsequently seek relief in higher forums when they failed to participate in the initial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a final order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they failed to contest the initial conditional order?
  • Does the existence of a parallel civil suit affect the maintainability of proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehan vs Director, Elementary Education (Schools), Gujranwala. Division, Gujranwala and 5 others1999 YLR 2106 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 453 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 128 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and 3 others1999 MLD 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad IqbalK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 801 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Government of the Punjab through SecretaryK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Services Cases 28 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs District Judge, Vehari And 5 Other1999 CLC 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1999 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealpro forma promotiondeputationsenioritycivil servantFundamental Rulesforeign service
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the denial of pro forma promotion and seniority to a civil servant who remained on deputation for an extended period. The appellant, a government employee, challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his claim for promotion to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant, which had been granted to his juniors in the parent department. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation is entitled to consideration for promotion based on the advancement of juniors in their parent cadre, and whether the employer is obligated to grant such benefits despite the deputation status. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in suggesting the appellant should have returned to his parent department to secure promotion. Relying on Fundamental Rules 9(7) and 113, the Court established that a civil servant on foreign service remains part of their parent cadre and is entitled to consideration for substantive or officiating promotion, taking into account the promotion of juniors. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and directing the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant on deputation entitled to consideration for pro forma promotion based on the promotion of juniors in their parent cadre?
  • Does the regularization of a deputation period remove the impediment to granting pro forma promotion to a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant be denied promotion solely because they remained on deputation rather than returning to their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and another vs Muhammad Sharif and others1999 YLR 39 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Boota vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20
  murderchance witnessmotivemedical evidencebenefit of doubtalibisubstitutioncapital sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the motive, whether the eyewitnesses were credible chance witnesses, and whether the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the triggering motive event, that the purported eyewitnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful, and that the medical evidence contradicted the single-weapon theory of the prosecution, pointing instead to a blind crime where the accused was implicated merely on suspicion. The Court laid down the principle that the weakness of a defence plea of alibi does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion and chance testimony cannot sustain a capital conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful can form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can divergent dimensions of firearm entry wounds on the victim's body negate the prosecution's claim that a single weapon was used by a single assailant?
  • What constitutes non-deliberate substitution or false implication based on suspicion in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim vs Abdul Baqi1999 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim Khan vs The Chief Secretary, N.W.F.P. and 4 others1999 SCMR 1605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-19
  service appealpromotionfitness versus eligibilityProvincial Selection BoardService Tribunal jurisdictionadverse ACRleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal under section 4(b)(i) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, for lack of jurisdiction over departmental decisions determining fitness for promotion. The dispute concerned promotion to Director (Engineering Wing) (BPS-19), where the petitioner was superseded by respondent No. 5. The petitioner contended that the Provincial Selection Board was supplied incomplete and misleading material, including an unmentioned exoneration in a disciplinary inquiry, non-disclosure of the respondent's adverse ACR, and irrelevant citation of the petitioner's ancient one-month adverse report. The Supreme Court distinguished between 'eligibility' and 'fitness', holding that while subjective fitness determination is generally immune from judicial scrutiny, the objective material and processes leading up to such determination are subject to judicial review if vital material is omitted or misleading data is presented. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Board's recommendations were vitiated by improper material.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal distinction between 'eligibility' and 'fitness' in matters of civil service promotion?
  • Does the bar under section 4(b)(i) of the Service Tribunals Act preclude judicial scrutiny of objective materials or vital omissions placed before a Selection Board determining fitness for promotion?
  • Does an eligible civil servant have an enforceable legal right to be considered for promotion based on faithful and complete record placement before a Selection Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim Khan vs The Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-19
  service lawpromotionfitness for promotionjudicial reviewservice tribunal jurisdictionselection boardmisrepresentation of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal's dismissal of his service appeal, which had been rejected on the grounds that determining fitness for promotion falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 4(b)(i) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether a Service Tribunal can review promotion decisions when the selection process is allegedly compromised by misleading or incomplete data. The Supreme Court held that while "fitness" for promotion involves subjective evaluation generally immune to judicial review, the process leading to such a decision must rely on accurate, complete material. Where the Selection Board is presented with misleading information, or vital data is omitted, the decision-making process is flawed and subject to judicial scrutiny. The Court established that objective factors underlying a promotion decision, such as the accuracy of the working paper and the data presented to the selection authority, are justiciable. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the Board's recommendation was improperly influenced by inaccurate records regarding the contestants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to review the process of promotion when the selection board relies on misleading or incomplete material?
  • Is the fitness of a civil servant for promotion a matter of subjective evaluation that is entirely immune from judicial scrutiny?
  • Can judicial review be invoked where the objective factors leading to a promotion decision are flawed by acts of commission or omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others1999 SCMR 2376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-09-22
  specific performanceagreement to sellappreciation of evidenceadditional evidenceconcurrent findingscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a civil revision, which had affirmed the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal questions involved whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the execution of the sale agreement and whether the refusal to allow additional evidence was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence, noting significant inconsistencies in the petitioner's case, particularly regarding the payment of consideration, the failure to explain why a sale deed was not executed, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the notarization of the agreement after the alleged vendor's death. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the agreement and that the lower courts properly exercised their discretion in rejecting the application for additional evidence, as the documents were available during the trial and were not substantive evidence. The principle established is that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where there is no misreading or non-consideration of material evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence if the party had ample opportunity to produce it during the trial?
  • Are documents consisting of previous statements or applications to administrative functionaries considered substantive evidence in a civil suit?
  • Does the failure to explain why a sale deed was not executed despite full payment of consideration justify the dismissal of a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Messrs Bawany Sugar Mills Ltd. through Managing Director and others1999 MLD 3273 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Commandant Batai Rangers and 2 others1999 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-17
  service tribunaldismissal from servicelimitation periodright of cross-examinationefficiency and discipline rulesrangerscondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant, a Sepoy/Lance Naik in the Rangers, was dismissed from service following an inquiry regarding an unnatural offence committed by fellow personnel. The core legal questions involved whether the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were initiated in accordance with law and whether his appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was governed by the West Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1967, and the summary trial procedure adopted through a Court of Inquiry vitiated the proceedings by depriving him of the valuable right to cross-examine witnesses under Rule 4. On limitation, the Court held that the appeal was within time, having been filed within the statutory period following the expiration of ninety days from the filing of a revision/representation before the competent authority. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings against a member of the Rangers must be conducted under the West Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1967 instead of a summary trial under military law?
  • Does the failure to afford an accused person the right to cross-examine witnesses vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by time when filed within thirty days following the expiry of ninety days from the submission of an un-disposed-of revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Ch.Muhammad Ismail1999 MLD 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Amar Shahzad and 4 others1999 YLR 610 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05
  civil revisionsuit for possessionadverse possessionregistered sale deedmutationproperty boundariesrevisional jurisdictionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which had reversed the Trial Court's dismissal and decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for possession. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession based on registered sale-deeds and mutations, whereas the petitioner resisted the suit claiming ownership by adverse possession for over 25 years, limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, and discrepancies in the property's description. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the plaintiffs successfully established title via unchallenged registered documents and proper boundary descriptions. The Court held that adverse possession must be open, overt, and hostile to the true owner's knowledge, and Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 had been declared un-Islamic by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to upset findings of fact absent jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can interfere with findings of fact recorded by an appellate court absent jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity?
  • Whether a lawful owner's title to immovable property can be defeated by a defendant's plea of adverse possession?
  • Which description prevails when there is a conflict between the stated boundaries and the stated area in an instrument conveying land?
  • Whether entries made in the register of the Excise and Taxation Department carry an absolute presumption of genuineness to establish adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Javaid vs Muhammad Khalil and 3 others1999 MLD 1672 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1848 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 406 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Cycle vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq, Subengineer vs Directorgeneral and another1999 SCMR 2122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-29
  civil servantssenioritypromotionselection gradecadreservice tribunalrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involves multiple appeals and petitions revolving around the interpretation of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 concerning the inter se seniority and promotion of Sub-Engineers in B-11 and B-16 within the Pakistan Public Works Department. The core legal question is whether seniority and further promotion to B-17 should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment in B-11 or from the date of regular promotion/placement to B-16 under the Recruitment Rules of 1984. The Supreme Court held that the Recruitment Rules of 1984 contemplated separate units for Sub-Engineers in B-16 through promotion, which gave them the right to count seniority from the date of regular promotion to B-16, and that this separate unit structure governs further promotions to B-17. The key principle laid down is that where recruitment rules create a distinct promotion unit or grade amounting to promotion rather than a mere selection grade, the seniority and subsequent promotion rights within that unit are determined from the date of regular appointment to that specific post or unit rather than from initial entry in the lower grade.

  Questions settled

  • Whether seniority of a civil servant is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or from the date of regular promotion to a higher post?
  • Does the placement of Sub-Engineers from B-11 to B-16 under the Recruitment Rules of 1984 constitute a promotion to a separate unit or merely a selection grade?
  • How does the amendment to section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 affecting the omission of the word 'grade' impact the preparation of seniority lists?
  • Are civil servants promoted to B-16 entitled to count their seniority from the date of such regular promotion for the purposes of further promotion to B-17?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq, Sub-Engineer., Khalid Mehmood Nasir and 6 others ., _90afe0211999 PLC (C.S.) 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-29
  civil servicesenioritypromotioncadrerecruitment rulesselection gradeinter se seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple appeals and petitions regarding the inter se seniority of Sub-Engineers in the Pakistan Public Works Department (Pak P.W.D.). The core legal question was whether Sub-Engineers promoted to B-16 under the 1984 Recruitment Rules constituted a separate cadre or unit, thereby allowing them to count seniority from the date of promotion to B-16, or whether seniority should be determined from the date of initial appointment in B-11. The Supreme Court held that the 1984 Rules created a distinct unit for B-16 posts, meaning those promoted to B-16 acquired a right to count seniority from the date of their regular promotion to that grade. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the placement in B-16 constituted a separate unit within the service structure, impacting subsequent promotions to B-17. The key principle laid down is that where recruitment rules explicitly create separate units or posts, seniority in the higher post is determined from the date of regular appointment to that specific post, rather than from the initial entry into the lower grade, unless otherwise mandated.

  Questions settled

  • Does placement in a higher grade under the 1984 Recruitment Rules constitute a separate unit for the purpose of determining seniority?
  • Should seniority of a civil servant be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or from the date of regular promotion to a higher post?
  • Does the amendment to Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 remove the concept of grade-based seniority in favor of post-based seniority?
  • Are Sub-Engineers promoted to B-16 entitled to count their seniority from the date of their promotion to that grade?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Secretary, Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04
  repatriationdeputationlienparent departmentservice tribunalcivil servantpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the appellant's service appeal concerning his repatriation from the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat to his parent department, the Ministry of Finance. The appellant, initially an Assistant in the Finance Division, was appointed as an Assistant in the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat in 1983 while retaining his right of reversion and lien in his parent department. Over time, he was promoted to Superintendent within the Ombudsman's Secretariat. In November 1991, he was repatriated to the Finance Division. He challenged this reversion before the Federal Service Tribunal, arguing that he was a regular employee of the Ombudsman's Secretariat rather than a deputationist and that his reversion amounted to unlawful demotion. The Tribunal granted him relief regarding his seniority and prospective promotions in the Finance Division, but the appellant sought full restoration to his position in the Ombudsman's Secretariat. The core legal question was whether an employee appointed to the Ombudsman's Secretariat while retaining a lien in his parent department could claim a permanent right to remain without being repatriated. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant maintained a valid lien in his parent department and was never permanently absorbed into the Ombudsman's Secretariat, his repatriation was lawful and unexceptionable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who retains a lien in their parent department can challenge their repatriation from the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat?
  • Does an employee appointed on terms preserving a right of reversion acquire a permanent right to post in the Ombudsman's Secretariat?
  • Whether repatriation of an employee holding a retained lien to their parent department constitutes an unlawful reduction in rank?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Pakistan Railways through General Manager, Lahore and 3 others1999 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-19
  premature retirementwithdrawal of resignationservice appeallimitation periodPakistan Railways
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal concerning his premature retirement from Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the appellant had validly and timely withdrawn his notice of premature retirement prior to its acceptance by the competent authority, and whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal letter was suspicious, bearing interpolated and backdated entries, and that it had been received by the department only after the acceptance of the premature retirement request. The Court also affirmed that the Divisional Superintendent was competent to order the premature retirement under the relevant schedule of powers. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can withdraw a notice of premature retirement after its acceptance by the competent authority?
  • Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal barred by time when filed after pursuing remedies in inappropriate forums beyond the limitation period?
  • Whether the Divisional Superintendent of Pakistan Railways is competent to order premature retirement under the Schedule of Powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Ghulam Muhyuddin1999 MLD 3211 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Malik and 2 others vs Secretary, Establishment1999 PLC (C.S.) 531 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The State and others1999 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-12
  criminal appealinterested witnessbenefit of doubtmurdercorroboration of evidenceeye-witness testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment maintaining convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of testimony from interested witnesses (the deceased's brothers) without corroboration, the sufficiency of evidence, and the validity of the defence version. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses was credible and consistent, and that relationship alone does not render a witness "interested" or unreliable. The Court affirmed that the prosecution is not obligated to produce every witness to the occurrence. While the convictions of the primary assailants were upheld, the Court acquitted one appellant, Muhammad Rafiq, granting him the benefit of doubt, finding his implication likely resulted from his status as the family head rather than direct participation. The Court further noted that injuries on the accused, if not reported to the police promptly, do not necessarily discredit the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals of the primary convicts were dismissed, and the petition against the acquittal of other co-accused was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render them interested witnesses requiring corroboration?
  • Is the prosecution legally required to produce all persons who witnessed an occurrence to prove a charge of murder?
  • Does the failure of an accused to report injuries to the police immediately after an occurrence discredit the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court grant the benefit of doubt to an accused based on the likelihood of their false implication as the head of a family?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafaqat vs The State1999 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and others vs The State1999 MLD 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and another vs The State1999 YLR 133 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim alias Usman vs The State1999 MLD 440 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervez, (Ex-Bursar) Additional Administrative Officer, Township Branch vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division_President, Board of Governors, Divisional Public School, Model Town, Lahore1999 PLC (C.S.) 149 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvez vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 970 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ozair and others vs Province of the Punjab through Collector, Rawalpindi and others1999 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-12
  Revenue RecordShamilat DehConcurrent findings of factAdverse possessionPresumption of truthDeclaration of titleLand acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals regarding the ownership of disputed land in the revenue estate of Murree. The appellants sought a declaration of ownership, claiming the land was 'Shamilat Deh', while the respondents (Provincial Government) asserted absolute ownership based on Revenue Record entries. The core legal question was whether the appellants sufficiently rebutted the presumption of truth attached to the Revenue Record and whether the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact regarding title were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to produce cogent documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of ownership or adverse possession, whereas the Revenue Record consistently supported the Provincial Government's title. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, absent any illegality, jurisdictional error, or misreading of evidence, are not open to interference. The principle laid down is that entries in the Revenue Record carry a presumption of truth, and the burden lies heavily on the party challenging such entries to prove their case through authentic documentary evidence; mere oral assertions are insufficient to extinguish the state's title.

  Questions settled

  • Do entries in the Revenue Record carry a presumption of truth regarding land ownership?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence?
  • Is a party who fails to prove their own title to land entitled to challenge the validity of a government development scheme affecting that land?
  • Does the mere payment of lease money or long-term possession without documentary proof suffice to rebut the presumption of ownership in the Revenue Record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 MLD 2510 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Mst. Hayatan and 6 others1999 YLR 2693 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Chaudhry vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 PLC (C.S.) 86 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Bhatti vs S.H.O., Police Station Ladheywala1999 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer Bhatti vs Station House Officer, Police StationK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 222 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Zar Kalim1999 PLD Karachi 453 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-13
  post-arrest bailmurderocular accountmedical evidencetentative assessmentdelay in trialdiscrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Nawaz, who was charged under Section 302, Section 34, and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Yousaf. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence, combined with the significant delay in the commencement of the trial. The Court held that while a deeper appreciation of evidence is generally not warranted at the bail stage, a tentative assessment of the material is permissible. Observing that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over one and a half years without the trial having commenced, and noting discrepancies between the alleged injuries attributed to the petitioner and the medical report, the Court granted the bail. The key principle laid down is that while the court should avoid a deep analysis of evidence at the bail stage, a tentative assessment is necessary to determine if there are reasonable grounds for continued detention, particularly when there is a significant delay in trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tentative assessment of evidence permissible at the bail stage despite the general rule against deeper appreciation of evidence?
  • Does a significant delay in the commencement of a trial constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be granted when there is a discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the injuries attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Secretary, Defence Production Division Ministry1999 PLC (C.S.) 1309 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1999-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Azhar And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Aman Ullah And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Mian Muhammad Munir And Other IntraK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 110 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Mian Muhammad Munir and 5 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 144 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another vs Mst. Farrah Naz1999 PLD Lahore 238 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15
  specific performancelimitation periodcondonation of delayimmovable propertytime is not of the essencepecuniary jurisdictioncontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a trial court decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The appellants challenged the decree, arguing the respondent failed to perform her obligations despite the vacation of a stay order on the land. The primary legal questions were whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The Court held that the appeal was time-barred, as the appellants failed to explain the delay between the return of the memorandum of appeal by the District Court and its filing in the High Court, and they could not claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, while simultaneously arguing the District Court had jurisdiction. On merits, the Court found the appellants failed to provide evidence of the stay order's vacation or respond to the respondent's reasonable requests for documentation. The Court affirmed the principle that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is not of the essence, and specific performance cannot be refused solely due to delays in execution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, while simultaneously arguing that the court which returned the appeal lacked jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to explain every day of delay between the return of a memorandum of appeal and its refiling in the correct forum preclude the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is time considered of the essence in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property in Pakistan?
  • Can a party refuse specific performance of a contract for the sale of land solely because the sale deed was not executed by the date fixed in the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Baluch vs President of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 4 others1999 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Other vs Allah Bakhsh Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and anothers vs The State and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21
  customs intelligencefirst information reportpolice station definitionsmuggled goodsimport policy orderjurisdiction of customs officersquashing of FIRdry port seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions challenging the registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) and the seizure of imported goods at the Dry Port, Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether the Directorate's regional office constitutes a "Police Station" empowered to register F.I.Rs under the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether the imported goods qualified as "smuggled goods" despite not being banned under the contemporary Import Policy, and the demarcation of powers between Officers of Customs and Intelligence Officers. The Lahore High Court held that the Directorate's regional office is not a legally constituted "Police Station" and lacked jurisdiction to register the F.I.R., which was accordingly quashed. The Court further held that goods permitted under the current Import Policy are not "smuggled goods," and that administrative friction between customs collectors and intelligence directorates must be resolved by the Central Board of Revenue. The key principles laid down include that investigative wings cannot independently establish police stations without formal notification by the Provincial Government, and that subsequent import policies override older static notifications regarding banned items.

  Questions settled

  • Can a regional office of the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) independently establish a police station and register a First Information Report?
  • Are goods imported in accordance with the current Import Policy Order considered smuggled goods merely because they were listed as banned under an older notification?
  • Whether intelligence officers possess concurrent jurisdiction to enter a dry port and initiate penal proceedings independently of the local customs collectorate?
  • What is the distinction in status and statutory functions between 'Officers of Customs' and 'Appropriate Officers' under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs The State And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Another vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha And 11 Other1999 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 1713 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz alias Mian vs Azhar and 11 others1999 P Cr. L J 418 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →