Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Kumudam Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2088 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-21Read full judgment →
- Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1999 PTD 3068 · Bombay High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
- Krishna Mohan Banik vs Income-Tax Officer , .1999 PTD 3962 · Gauhati High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- Krishna Metal Industries vs H.M. Algotar1999 PTD 336 · Gujarat High Court · 1997-04-17Read full judgment →
- Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (),1999 PTD 2456 · Madras High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
- Kishwar Perween and others vs Rashida Bibi and 5 others1999 SCMR 2379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions converted into appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning local government elections. The core legal question involves the restraint on holding the election of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman pending the final adjudication of an election petition before the Election Tribunal. The court held that the High Court stay order is vacated subject to the observation that the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner shall not hold the election of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman until the election petition pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Okara, cum-Election Tribunal for Town Committee, Renala Khurd, is finally decided in accordance with the High Court's order by the specified deadline of 15th of January, 1999. The key principle established relates to balancing the execution of election proceedings with the expeditious final resolution of pending election disputes before designated tribunals.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court vacate a High Court stay order while permitting a conditional restraint on holding local government elections?
- Whether the election of a Chairman or Vice-Chairman should remain suspended pending the final decision of a pending election petition before an Election Tribunal?
- Kishore Kumar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
- Kirti Chand Tarawati Charitable Trust vs Director of;Income-Tax1999 PTD 3927 · Delhi High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
- Kiramatullah Khan vs Haji Abdur Rehman Khan1999 CLC 1746 · Election Tribunal · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition challenged the election of the returned candidate on grounds of disqualification, alleging he was a defaulter of loans and government dues at the time of filing nomination papers, and had submitted a false declaration. The core legal questions were whether the candidate was a defaulter under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and whether the election petition was maintainable given the repeal of certain ordinances. The Election Tribunal held that the petition was maintainable under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, as the qualification of the candidate is determined with reference to the nomination day. However, on the merits, the Tribunal found that the candidate was not a defaulter because the recovery of the alleged loans and dues had been stayed by competent courts, and the statutory time-frame for default had not been met. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the election petition, ruling that the candidate's failure to disclose these items was immaterial as they did not constitute default within the meaning of the law at the relevant time.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of an ordinance affect the qualification of a candidate if the nomination papers were filed while the ordinance was in force?
- Can a candidate be declared a defaulter of loans or government dues if the recovery of such amounts has been stayed by a court order?
- Does an election petition filed under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, become redundant due to the insertion of Section 76-A?
- Is a candidate disqualified for failing to disclose loans in nomination papers if the statutory time-frame for default has not yet expired?
- Khyber Wood Processing Co. Ltd., Industrial Estate, Jamrud through Managing Director vs Messrs Sui Northern Gaspipe Lines Ltd. and others1999 YLR 195 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Khushim Jhammad vs Khair Din1999 MLD 2865 · Board of Revenue · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1999 SCMR 2868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition seeking the implementation of a previous judgment of the Court wherein bail granted to a respondent was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued for his arrest. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum and mechanism for enforcing and executing judgments, orders, or decrees of the Supreme Court when executive authorities fail to execute warrants and provide protection. The Court held that while it is the constitutional duty of government functionaries to protect life and liberty and aid the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution, a specific provision exists under Article 187(2) of the Constitution for the enforcement of any direction, order, or decree of the Supreme Court by the concerned High Court. The petition was accordingly disposed of, observing that the petitioner may approach the High Court for speedy and effective implementation.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for the direct execution of its orders or if the concerned High Court should be approached under Article 187(2) of the Constitution?
- What is the constitutional duty of executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan regarding the aid of the Supreme Court under Article 190?
- Does an accused who has escaped from custody and remained a proclaimed offender forfeit the benefit of the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Khushi Muhammad and 2 others vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab and 2 others1999 SCMR 1633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns the entitlement of 'Kala Base evictees' to proprietary rights in state lands, specifically interpreting the term 'sitting tenants' from a 1975 Cabinet decision. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could unilaterally modify a policy decision that had already been adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, and whether 'sitting tenants' necessitated personal self-cultivation. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Revenue lacked the authority to reopen a past and closed transaction that had attained finality through previous litigation. The Court affirmed that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata bar the re-agitation of settled issues. Furthermore, the Court held that sub-tenants are estopped under the law from challenging the title of the tenant under whom they claim. It was clarified that 'sitting tenants' encompasses both physical and constructive possession, and benefits intended for specific evictees cannot be extended to non-evictees. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the finality of the earlier judicial determinations regarding the rights of the Kala Base evictees.
Questions settled- Can a subordinate administrative body unilaterally modify a policy decision that has attained finality through previous judicial adjudication?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to issues that could have been raised in previous litigation but were not?
- Is a sub-tenant estopped from questioning the title of the tenant under whom they claim possession?
- Does the term 'sitting tenants' in a government policy decision necessarily imply personal self-cultivation, or does it include constructive possession?
- Khushal Singh Subhash Chander vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2741 · Himachal Pradesh High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Haider vs Syed Saeed Ahmad, District and Sessions Judge, Central Karachi1999 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-02Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Anwar, Assistant Director Education (Retd) vs Chief1999 SCMR 1790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a retired Assistant Director of Education. The petitioner sought to ante-date his promotion to B.P.S. 17 and B.P.S. 18, claiming benefits from 1971 rather than 1974. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner’s claims were time-barred due to inordinate delay and whether the High Court correctly identified the petitioner's negligence in pursuing his remedies. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the petitioner failed to object to his pay scale for nearly a decade and repeatedly filed belated representations. The Court held that a petitioner cannot revive a time-barred claim through repeated, stale representations or by withdrawing earlier writ petitions to seek redress elsewhere when the underlying cause of action is stale. The judgment reinforces the principle that laches and negligence in pursuing administrative remedies disentitle a litigant from invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly regarding service matters involving disputed facts and alleged forged documents.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner revive a time-barred service claim by filing repeated representations?
- Does the withdrawal of a writ petition with permission to seek redress elsewhere allow a petitioner to circumvent the limitation period for a stale claim?
- Is a constitutional petition competent for matters relating to terms and conditions of service?
- Khurshid Anwar vs Province of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmed vs Mohtasib And 3 Other1999 CLC 972 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-08-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1999 SCMR 2428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, the deceased's empty stomach, and the existence of prior enmity between the parties rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies in witness testimony during a shocking occurrence do not invalidate the prosecution's case, as witnesses cannot be expected to narrate events with mathematical exactitude. The Court further held that a single gunshot can cause multiple injuries and that the testimony of related or inimical witnesses is admissible without corroboration if it possesses intrinsic worth and inspires confidence. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the deceased's empty stomach did not contradict the prosecution's timeline regarding the labourers' movements. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must sift the grain from the chaff to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even when some co-accused are acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can the testimony of inimical or related witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons necessarily reflect upon the conviction of the remaining accused?
- Is a medical finding of an empty stomach sufficient to disprove the prosecution's timeline of events?
- Khurshid Ahmad vs Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan And 31999 CLC 694 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the Bahauddin Zakariya University's refusal to re-evaluate his "Federal Taxes-II" paper for the Diploma in Taxation Laws examination, alleging mala fide and improper marking by an unqualified examiner. The core legal question was whether the University was obligated to re-evaluate the answer script upon specific, unrebutted allegations of bias and mala fide, and whether the examiner's appointment complied with University regulations. The Court held that the University’s failure to rebut the specific allegations of mala fide and bias, combined with the absence of the answer script, created a reasonable suspicion of unjust evaluation. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the University to have the paper re-evaluated by two qualified examiners who are teachers in the relevant subjects. The key principle established is that while University organs are entitled to discretion, they are bound by the rule of law. Where a candidate alleges specific mala fide, and authorities fail to rebut it, the Court may intervene to ensure justice, as the right to inspect an answer script is merely a preliminary step, and an effective remedy like re-evaluation must be available where there is a reasonable suspicion of unjust evaluation.
Questions settled- Can a court order the re-evaluation of an examination paper when specific allegations of mala fide and bias are left unrebutted by the university?
- Does the right to inspect an answer script constitute an effective remedy for a candidate alleging unjust evaluation?
- Is a university authority bound by the rule of law when exercising discretion in academic matters?
- Does the failure of university authorities to file counter-affidavits in response to specific allegations of bias justify judicial intervention?
- Khursheed K. A. Marker and 3 others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others1999 PLD Supreme Court 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions assailing concurrent findings of the High Court and the Rent Controller dismissing eviction applications filed by landlords against tenants on the ground of default in rent payments. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, applicable to Baluchistan and N.-W.F.P., which allows for the rejection of an eviction application if a tenant admits liability on the first date of hearing, provided the tenant has not made such default on any previous occasion. The Supreme Court held that the provision is designed to stifle litigation and provide reprieve to tenants with a clean past, obligating the landlord to expressly and specifically plead a previous default when bringing the application or immediately when the tenant admits default. The Court laid down that landlords cannot remain silent and raise vague allegations of default, and that being too slow to agitate the plea of previous default before the Controller is fatal to their case, thus upholding the concurrent orders dismissing the eviction applications.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord is obligated to expressly plead a previous default when seeking eviction on the ground of default under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- At what stage must a tenant admit liability to avail the statutory reprieve under section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the failure of a landlord to promptly raise and identify a previous default before the Rent Controller preclude them from raising it subsequently?
- Khurram Shahzad and others vs University of Peshawar through Registrar and 4 others1999 MLD 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
- Khuda Yar through Legal Heirs and 10 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1999 SCMR 1808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses whether the right of pre-emption under statutory law is heritable upon the death of a pre-emptor during the pendency of a suit. The core legal question involves determining whether legal representatives pursuing a pre-emptor's pending suit must independently possess a superior pre-emptive right against the vendee, or if they merely succeed to the deceased's superior right. The Court held that under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, once a pre-emption suit is duly instituted, the right to sue is heritable and survives in favour of all legal heirs of the deceased pre-emptor, irrespective of whether the individual heirs independently possessed a superior pre-emptive right or had previously waived their personal claims. The key principle laid down is that upon a pre-emptor's death during a pending suit, the heirs prosecute the vested right of the original pre-emptor, and their prior personal qualifications or lack thereof do not enter the equation.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption is heritable upon the death of a pre-emptor during the pendency of a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Do the legal representatives of a deceased pre-emptor need to independently possess a preferential right against the vendee to continue a pending pre-emption suit?
- Does the element of waiver by individual heirs affect their capacity to pursue the deceased pre-emptor's pending pre-emption claim?
- Are all legal heirs of a deceased pre-emptor entitled to be impleaded upon the death of the plaintiff during the pendency of a pre-emption suit?
- Khuda Bux Chandio vs Sattar and others1999 MLD 3227 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-31Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux Bozdar vs The State1999 MLD 172 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-08Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bukhsh vs Ali Muhammad Khoso and 6 others1999 MLD 2563 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Habib Ullah1999 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The pre-emptor-appellant instituted a suit to pre-empt a registered sale of land, claiming superior rights as a collateral of the vendors and as a co-sharer, while the respondent-vendee contested the suit asserting a superior tenancy right and alleging that the suit was filed benami for the benefit of local Patwaris. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but both the First Appellate Court and the High Court reversed the decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish his collateralship through admissible evidence and that the suit was indeed brought benami for third parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that findings on questions of fact regarding family relationship, tenancy, and benami transactions based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal. The Court reaffirmed that oral evidence of relationship must comply with statutory requirements of admissibility and that benami nature of a pre-emption suit is generally inferred from surrounding circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether oral evidence reciting pedigree tables without laying proper foundation is admissible to prove relationship under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding collateralship and tenancy in a pre-emption suit be upset by the Supreme Court in an appeal arising from a second appeal?
- Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed on the ground that it has been brought benami for the benefit of third parties?
- Khizar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 331 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Khialdas & Sons vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 460 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- Khemraj Nemichand Shrishrimal Charitable Trust vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3981 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
- Khawja Muhammad Umar Farooq And Other vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 59 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khawaja Waliullah And Others vs Haji Amir Maqsood1999 CLC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-21Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Salahuddin vs Malik Muhammad Nasim and another1999 YLR 396 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf vs Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas and others1999 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of three appeals arising from a Lahore High Court order that allowed applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), recalling a prior writ petition judgment on the grounds of fraud and forgery. The appellant, claiming to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, asserted allotment and proprietary rights over the disputed land. Conversely, the private respondents, who were not parties to the original writ petition, alleged that the appellant's allotment and revenue documents were fabricated. The Supreme Court examined two key legal questions: whether a non-party to a proceeding can file an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C., and which forum constitutes the 'final' court for such an application. The Court held that the term 'person' in Section 12(2) C.P.C. permits affected non-parties to file such applications. It also held that if the Supreme Court merely refuses leave to appeal, the final judgment remains that of the High Court. Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to determine factual questions of allotment and possession.
Questions settled- Whether a person who was not a party to the original proceedings can file an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if their rights are adversely affected by the judgment?
- Which court is considered to have passed the 'final order' under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the Supreme Court merely dismisses a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment?
- Can a High Court entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to recall its own judgment in a writ petition on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation?
- Khawaja Muhammad Sharif vs Syed Yusuf Shah and 3 others1999 YLR 1449 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Masood Anwar vs Saleemuddin Qureshi1999 MLD 3349 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-16Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Hasanullah vs The State1999 MLD 514 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of five criminal appeals directed against the conviction of the appellants under Section 365-A read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for kidnapping for ransom. The prosecution case was that the abductee was forcibly intercepted, abducted in a car, and confined for nine days until a ransom was paid. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the identification parade, the sufficiency of ocular testimony of the abductee and his son, and the application of the shifted burden of proof under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The Sindh High Court held that where the abductee remained in captivity for days and had ample opportunity to interact with the kidnappers, identification parades were not strictly necessary, and the ocular evidence was fully trustworthy. The court affirmed the convictions, upheld the recovery of ransom amounts, but altered the death sentence of the prime appellant to imprisonment for life, while confirming life imprisonment for the remaining appellants and ordering the confiscation of their properties.
Questions settled- Whether an identification parade is mandatory when the abductee remains in captivity with the culprits for several days and interacts with them?
- Does the failure to examine the driver of the victim's car vitiate the prosecution's case in a kidnapping for ransom trial?
- Under what circumstances does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Whether the recovery of unexplained large sums of money from the accused constitutes corroborative evidence of extortion and kidnapping for ransom?
- Khawaj Muhammad vs District Judge, Mansehra and others1999 MLD 2723 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
- Khawaj Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Baland Khan through Legal1999 MLD 2140 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for partition on the ground of res judicata and the bar under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a subsequent suit for partition of jointly owned land, involving property previously litigated upon between the same parties, is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata when the defendant's title via a registered sale deed had already attained finality in earlier proceedings. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was bound by the final findings of the previous litigation, wherein the validity and extent of the registered sale deed had been conclusively established, and that the petitioner's failure to raise the plea regarding the area's measurement in the former suit attracted the bar of constructive res judicata under Section 11, Explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court reaffirmed that parties must bring their whole case forward in the first instance to prevent multiplicity of suits.
Questions settled- Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a subsequent suit where a party failed to raise available grounds of defense in the former suit?
- Can a plaintiff institute a fresh suit for partition of property when the underlying title and extent of the sale deed have attained finality in previous litigation between the same parties?
- What is the scope and objective of Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding matters that might and ought to have been made ground of defense or attack?
- Khaqan and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 935 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
- Khaqan and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
- Khandelwal Constructions vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2385 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
- Khana Jan vs S.H.O. and others1999 MLD 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
- Khan Zaman and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 53 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-23Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 662 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The State and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1999 YLR 221 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad Latif Khan, Advocate vs Najam Ali1999 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad Khan and 19 others vs Saif Ali and 22 others1999 YLR 550 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the High Court judgment dismissing the appellants' writ petition, which had upheld the trial and appellate courts' dismissal of the appellants' suit for adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a suit filed against defendants who had already died prior to its institution is a nullity, and whether their legal representatives can be impleaded under Order XXII Rule 4 or Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that since the defendants died before the suit's institution, Order XXII Rule 4 (which applies to deaths during pendency) does not apply; rather, the matter is governed by Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, and there is no 90-day limitation period for impleading legal representatives of persons dead prior to the suit. The court laid down the principle that a suit should not be dismissed entirely when some defendants died before institution, but instead, their legal representatives may be impleaded under Order I Rule 10, leaving the question of limitation open for the defendants to raise subsequently.
Questions settled- Whether Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to defendants who died before the institution of a suit?
- Can legal representatives of a defendant who died prior to the filing of a suit be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is there a fixed limitation period of ninety days for bringing on record the legal representatives of a person who was already dead when the suit was instituted?
- Should a suit be dismissed entirely if some of the co-defendants were dead at the time of its institution?
- Khan Muhammad and others vs The State1999 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of the appellants, Khan Muhammad and Mst. Kanizan, for the murders of the appellant's wife and five children under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted both appellants, and the Lahore High Court dismissed their appeal while confirming the death sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the judicial confessions made by the appellants were voluntary, legally recorded, and admissible despite allegations of being recorded on oath and following a delay in police custody. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the judicial confessions were voluntary, properly recorded in compliance with section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without the administration of oath, and sufficiently corroborated by blood-stained recoveries and motive. The key principles laid down are that a conviction can be sustained on a retracted judicial confession if it is proved voluntary and compliant with legal formalities, and that a mere routine clerical expression in a confession record does not invalidate it when no foundational challenge was made during the cross-examination of the recording magistrate.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession if it is recorded in accordance with law?
- Does a delay in recording a judicial confession while the accused is in police custody render the confession involuntary and nugatory?
- Is a judicial confession rendered inadmissible merely due to the presence of a routine clerical expression suggesting it was recorded on oath, when no such objection was raised during the cross-examination of the recording magistrate?
- Khan Muhammad and another vs The State1999 MLD 2456 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
- Khan Baig vs The State1999 MLD 2168 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khan Ali vs The State1999 MLD 2477 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
- Khamiso and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 9 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons charged with murder under sections 302, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants sought bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that medical evidence created ambiguity regarding which accused inflicted the fatal injury, thereby necessitating further inquiry. The State opposed the application, contending that the identity of the specific shooter is immaterial when a common intention to commit murder is established. The Court held that the applicants' arguments required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court determined that the applicants were specifically charged with firing at the deceased and that a common intention to commit murder was evident. Consequently, the Court found no reasonable grounds to conclude that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The bail application was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does ambiguity regarding which specific accused inflicted a fatal injury necessitate the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- When does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it material to identify the specific shooter when a common intention to commit murder is alleged?
- Khalique Ahmad vs Tahir Saeed and Muhammad Saeed1999 NLR Civil 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-26Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Noor vs The State1999 YLR 2331 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Khalil" Nawaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Okara, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was legally competent and had the jurisdiction under sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995 to detain, search, and arrest the appellant and initiate proceedings for the recovery of narcotics. The court held that an officer below the rank specified by law lacks the substantive jurisdiction to set the law in motion, rendering the proceedings and conviction coram non judice and illegal. Additionally, the court ruled that criminal cases cannot be decided on special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is competent to detain, search, and arrest a person for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995?
- Can a criminal case be decided on the special oath of a complainant under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether the provisions of section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked for suspension of sentence in hardship cases?
- What is the legal effect of proceedings initiated by a police officer lacking substantive jurisdiction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995?
- Khalid Taqi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 271 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Khalid Taqi, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case registered in 1992. The accused, arrested in 1996, sought post-arrest bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay, as the trial had not concluded despite the passage of two years since the framing of the charge. The trial court had previously rejected the bail application, characterizing the accused as a habitual and hardened criminal due to his involvement in seven other criminal cases. The Sindh High Court examined whether the mere pendency of other criminal cases justifies denying bail on the basis of being a hardened or desperate criminal. The Court held that the trial court's reasoning was erroneous and contrary to established legal principles. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court, the High Court affirmed that the mere pendency of other cases does not categorize an accused as a habitual or desperate criminal. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of a bond.
Questions settled- Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases against an accused justify classifying them as a habitual or hardened criminal for the purpose of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay if the trial has not concluded within two years of the framing of the charge?
- Is the pendency of multiple criminal cases a valid ground to deny bail in a murder case?
- Khalid Saeed vs Haji Ghulam Rasul and others1999 YLR 2573 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman, WAPDA And Another1999 CLC 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of WAPDA's actions in disconnecting the petitioner's electricity supply and issuing a detection bill for alleged energy theft. The core legal question was whether the licensee (WAPDA) could unilaterally determine energy theft, disconnect supply, and issue a detection bill without following statutory procedures, particularly regarding the involvement of the Electric Inspector and the association of independent witnesses during inspection. The Court held that the impugned detection bill and the disconnection of electricity were illegal and without lawful authority. The ratio established that when a dispute arises regarding metering equipment or alleged tampering, the licensee cannot act as a judge in its own cause. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions, specifically those requiring the association of respectable local residents during inspections and the referral of metering disputes to the Electric Inspector, are mandatory. Consequently, the Court set aside the detection bill, ordered the restoration of electricity, and directed the parties to resolve the dispute before the Electric Inspector in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a licensee unilaterally issue a detection bill for alleged electricity theft without referring the metering dispute to the Electric Inspector?
- Is the association of respectable local residents during the inspection of electricity premises a mandatory requirement under the Electricity Act 1910?
- Does the licensee have the authority to disconnect electricity supply solely based on a detection bill without providing the consumer an opportunity to be heard?
- When metering equipment is involved in a dispute, is the licensee permitted to assess the bill under Section 26-A of the Electricity Act 1910?
- Khalid Nazir Rana vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1999 MLD 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nawaz vs The State1999 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Khalid Nawaz, under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Rehmat Ali. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death as Qisas could be enforced and maintained despite the fact that the mother of the deceased, being an adult Wali, had waived her right of Qisas during the trial. The Supreme Court held that the waiver of the right of Qisas by one of the legal heirs (Wali) precludes the execution of the death sentence as Qisas, altering the sentence of death to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alongside the payment of Diyat to the mother of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that an adult Wali can legally waive the right of Qisas, which affects the quantum and nature of punishment under the penal code.
Questions settled- Can the death sentence as Qisas be enforced if one of the legal heirs waives the right of Qisas?
- What is the legal effect of a waiver of Qisas by an adult Wali of the deceased under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the High Court can maintain a death sentence without noticing a statement regarding the waiver of Qisas made before the trial court?
- Khalid Mehmood, Inspector Police No. R-227, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 558 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former F.S.F. member absorbed into the Punjab Police, sought the implementation of a Punjab Service Tribunal order that directed his permanent absorption as a Sub-Inspector effective from 1-12-1977, along with associated seniority and promotion rights. The respondents resisted the petition, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as the matter concerned terms and conditions of service, and further claimed the order had already been implemented. The Court held that while Article 212 bars jurisdiction regarding the determination of service terms and conditions, it does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a writ petition to compel the implementation of a final, unappealed decision of a Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the respondents' failure to implement the Tribunal's order frustrated the constitutional mandate. Finding that the respondents' purported implementation was inconsistent with the Tribunal's specific directions, the Court accepted the petition and directed the immediate implementation of the Tribunal's order in its true letter and spirit.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to direct the implementation of a final order passed by a Service Tribunal?
- Is a writ petition maintainable for the sole purpose of enforcing a judgment of a Service Tribunal that has attained finality?
- Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to petitions seeking the execution of a Service Tribunal's decision?
- Khalid Mehmood vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mehmood vs Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore1999 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses a petition filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the seizure of a large sum of Pakistani currency from the petitioner at an airport by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and subsequent proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal questions involved the competency of the FIA to act under the Customs Act, the validity of show-cause notices, and the legality of extending the time for issuing such notices under section 168(2) of the Customs Act in the presence of an adequate alternative statutory remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have dismissed the constitutional petition solely on the ground of maintainability due to the availability of an alternative adequate remedy before the Customs Appellate Tribunal and a subsequent appeal to the High Court under section 196 of the Customs Act. The Court further observed that the FIA possesses lawful powers of search, arrest, and seizure under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, which graft onto the Customs Act. The key principle laid down is that where a statute provides an exclusive appellate or revisional forum terminating in the High Court itself, the High Court must exercise extreme judicial restraint and decline to entertain constitutional petitions under Article 199 unless the impugned order is patently without jurisdiction or void.
Questions settled- Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution when an adequate alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal and thereafter to the High Court, is available?
- Does the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) have the legal competence to exercise powers of search, arrest, and seizure under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Is it mandatory for the Collector of Customs to record reasons in writing while extending the time for issuing a show-cause notice under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does an extension of time under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, require a prior notice and hearing to the affected party?
- Khalid Mahmud and 6 others vs Maqbul Mahmood Bajwa, Additional1999 MLD 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood vs Mst. Sultana Bano1999 MLD 3045 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood vs Mst. Ruqia and another1999 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi East, which set aside a trial court order dismissing a guardian and wards application for want of jurisdiction. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of "ordinarily resides" under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, particularly where a minor is shifted out of the court's jurisdiction after the filing of a custody petition to defeat proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that a party cannot deprive another of legal remedies through foul play or by forcefully removing a minor to alter jurisdiction, and that the question of where a minor ordinarily resides is a pure question of fact requiring evidence. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the trial court to first determine the question of ordinary residence and jurisdiction on evidence, while suspending the interim custody order pending that determination.
Questions settled- Does a Guardian Court retain jurisdiction when a minor is removed from its territorial limits after the filing of a custody petition?
- Is the question of where a minor ordinarily resides under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 a question of fact requiring evidence?
- Can a party defeat court jurisdiction by shifting the residence of a minor to another district after receiving notice of guardianship proceedings?
- Must the trial court determine the question of jurisdiction before proceeding on the merits of a guardianship application?
- Khalid Mahmood vs Collector of Customs1999 P.C.T.L.R. 171 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahm06 vs The State1999 YLR 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
- Khalid Javed Chaudhry vs Chairman, Employees Old Age BenefitsK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 105 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
- Khalid alias Sooty vs The State1999 YLR 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
- Khalid Abbas Khan Niazi vs Member Income Tax (Judicial) C.B.R, And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 673 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khair Nabi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
- Khair Din through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others1999 YLR 2589 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Muhammad Fazil and 4 others1999 YLR 1529 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the validity of an appeal filed by an attorney in a pre-emption suit. The High Court had dismissed the appeal, ruling the attorney lacked specific authority to file it. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined whether the power of attorney, which authorized the attorney to conduct the case, implicitly included the power to file an appeal, and whether the doctrine of ratification under the Contract Act, 1872, could cure any procedural defects. The Court held that the power of attorney, when construed to include all necessary incidental powers for litigation, sufficiently authorized the attorney to file the appeal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the principle of ratification is applicable to civil litigation, allowing a principal to ratify an agent's acts, even after the limitation period, provided the act was not inherently illegal. The Court established that powers of attorney should be interpreted based on the principal's overall intent rather than rigid, narrow phrasing, and that procedural irregularities in legal representation are curable through subsequent ratification.
Questions settled- Does the power to conduct a suit include the power to file an appeal?
- Can a principal ratify an act performed by an agent in civil litigation after the expiry of the limitation period?
- Is the principle of ratification under the Contract Act applicable to the relationship between a client and their counsel?
- Does the doctrine of ratification apply if the act of the agent adversely affects the rights of a third party?
- Khadim Hussain Khan and 9 others vs Mst. Sarwar Jan and 27 others1999 MLD 824 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and others vs State1999 MLD 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and another vs The State1999 YLR 619 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-13Read full judgment →
- Khadam Hussain and 9 others vs Abdul Rehman and 2 others1999 YLR 1699 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Ayub vs Mirza Tazarrat Hussain And 5 Other1999 CLC 840 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that quashed the allotment of a plot made from the Prime Minister’s special quota. The appellant argued that the allotment was valid and that the writ petition was defective for failing to implead the Allotment Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Chairman of the Municipal Committee, who approved the allotment, was the ex-officio Chairman of the Allotment Committee; thus, his inclusion as a party cured any alleged defect of non-joinder. On merits, the Court affirmed that while the Chief Executive possesses broad discretion in special quota allotments, this does not absolve authorities from considering competing applications, particularly where a claimant has a prior history of possession and a pending application. The Court upheld the High Court’s direction for the authorities to reconsider the allotment afresh, ensuring all deserving claims are evaluated. The judgment establishes that administrative discretion in quota allotments is not immune from judicial review when competing claims are ignored, and that the identity of the functionary, rather than mere title, is paramount in legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead a specific committee as a party invalidate a writ petition if the person holding the office of the committee's chairman is already a party?
- Is the discretion of the Chief Executive to allot plots from a special quota absolute and immune from judicial review?
- Are public authorities required to consider competing applications for plot allotments when a claimant has established prior possession?
- Kh. Iftikhar Ahmad vs Ghulam Rasool and 4 others1999 YLR 1107 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-04-02Read full judgment →
- Kewro and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1619 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-12Read full judgment →
- Kerala Industrial Polymers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3470 · Kerala High Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
- Kazim Ali Shah vs The State1999 MLD 3435 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-24Read full judgment →
- Kawther Grain (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/1999 PTD 4028 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the issuance of a notice and subsequent assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax holding the petitioner as an "assessee in default" for failing to deduct withholding tax under section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance on the purchase of factory land, building, and machinery. The core legal question was whether the sale of immovable property and fixed capital assets constitutes a "supply of goods" attracting advance tax deduction provisions under section 50(4). The Lahore High Court held that the transaction involved the transfer of capital assets and immovable property, which cannot by any imagination be treated as a supply of goods, rendering the assessment order and creation of demand entirely void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that fiscal statutes must be construed strictly according to the letter of the law, and words undefined in the statute must be assigned their ordinary dictionary meanings, making alternate remedies illusory where revenue authorities strictly follow binding departmental circulars contrary to law.
Questions settled- Does the sale of factory land, building, and fixed machinery constitute a "supply of goods" under section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an assessment order in fiscal matters where departmental circulars render any alternate statutory remedy illusory?
- Are words undefined in a fiscal statute required to be construed according to their ordinary dictionary meanings?
- Does the transfer of immovable property and fixed capital assets attract advance tax deduction obligations under the Income Tax Ordinance?
- Kausar Ali alias Kausary vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1999 PLD Peshawar 82 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner through his brother, challenging the legality of an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Charsadda, under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which was subsequently extended. The core legal question was whether preventive detention under the said Ordinance can be legally justified on the basis of general traditional grounds, pending criminal cases, or acts that are fully covered by the ordinary substantive criminal law of the land. The Peshawar High Court held that preventive detention cannot be invoked for acts that constitute specific offences under ordinary substantive penal statutes and that any detention order must be backed by a living and immediate cause, failing which it reflects mala fide. The Court laid down the principle that the satisfaction required under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance must be objective and that past or pending criminal cases punishable under ordinary penal laws cannot be used as a proxy for preventive detention.
Questions settled- Whether preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 can be ordered on the basis of offences covered by ordinary substantive criminal law?
- Does the registration and pendency of criminal cases furnish a valid legal ground for preventive detention?
- Is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance open to judicial review for objectivity?
- Kashmir Chemical Industries, Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan, Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 565 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
- Kashif And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
- Kashif alias Billoo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
- Karnataka Light Metal Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax I.T.R.C1999 PTD 449 · karnataka High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh And 2 Others vs Qadrat Ali And 20 Other1999 CLC 967 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
- Karamat Ali vs The State1999 YLR 493 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
- Karam Ellahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 437 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
- Karam Elahi vs District Judge, Lodhran And 6 Other1999 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
- Karam Elahi and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 130 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
- Karam Dad vs Ghulam Qasim and 3 others1999 SCMR 2783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the conviction of Ghulam Qasim and Falak Sher for the murder of Raza Muhammad, and the acquittal of other co-accused. The trial court had sentenced Ghulam Qasim to death and Falak Sher to life imprisonment. The High Court maintained these convictions but commuted Ghulam Qasim's death sentence to life imprisonment without providing specific mitigating circumstances, while upholding the acquittals of the other accused. The petitioner challenged the reduction of Ghulam Qasim's sentence, the quantum of Falak Sher's sentence, and the acquittal of Liyar. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to provide valid reasons for commuting the death sentence of Ghulam Qasim despite finding the evidence against him unimpeachable. Conversely, the Court found the acquittal of Liyar justified due to discrepancies between the weapon used and the nature of the injury, and upheld the lesser penalty for Falak Sher as his injury was not on a vital part. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal solely to examine the legality of the lesser penalty awarded to Ghulam Qasim, while declining leave regarding the other respondents.
Questions settled- Can a High Court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment without providing specific mitigating circumstances?
- Is an acquittal based on a discrepancy between the alleged weapon used and the medical evidence regarding the injury sustained valid?
- Does the fact that an injury was not on a vital part of the body justify a lesser penalty in a murder case?
- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. vs Deputy1999 PTD 2510 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →