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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State and others1998 MLD 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Fajji alias Phaji Begum through Legal Heirs1998 SCMR 2485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-26
  specific performancetime is of the essenceimmovable propertyconcurrent findingscontractual obligationsreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The core legal question was whether time was of the essence of the contract, given that the parties had specified a target date for the execution and registration of the sale deed. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court and the High Court subsequently dismissed it, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and that the specified date was indeed essential. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the question of which party failed to perform its obligations is a pure question of fact, which cannot be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court affirmed that while there is a general presumption that time is not of the essence in immovable property transactions, this presumption is rebuttable based on the parties' clear intention, conduct, and the specific terms of the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of which party failed to perform its part of a contract a question of fact or a question of law?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the general presumption that time is not of the essence in immovable property transactions apply when the parties have clearly intended otherwise?
  • How is the intention of parties regarding whether time is of the essence in a contract to be assessed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1998 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionKhasra Girdawariconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appealagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his writ petition in limine, which had challenged the concurrent findings of revenue authorities dismissing his pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether a pre-emptor could establish a superior right of pre-emption without producing crucial Khasra Girdawaris for the relevant period of sale. The Supreme Court held that a pre-emptor must prove superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of the institution of the suit, and at the time of the decree. Because the petitioner failed to produce Khasra Girdawaris for Rabi 1972, Kharif 1972, Rabi 1973, and Kharif 1973 to substantiate his claim of tenancy at the time of the sale, the lower courts and the High Court rightly dismissed his claim. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor must establish a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of the institution of the suit, and at the time of the decree?
  • Is a pre-emptor required to produce Khasra Girdawaris for the relevant period of sale to substantiate possession as a tenant?
  • Whether concurrent factual findings of revenue authorities regarding the lack of evidence of tenancy are open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Judge Family Court and others1998 MLD 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Inam Ullah Khan alias Inam and another1998 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1998 SCMR 2645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-10
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delayhigher post salaryfundamental rulestime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, employed as a Clerk Incharge in Pakistan Railways, claimed salary for a higher post (Accountant, BPS-16) under Fundamental Rule 17 for the period between 11th December, 1980 and 10th December, 1985, during which he allegedly performed duties of the said post. His departmental representations were rejected, culminating in a final rejection on 16th August, 1995. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 7th January, 1996, which was dismissed as time-barred under Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, without any formal application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal regarding the bar of limitation were unexceptionable, reiterating that mere reminders do not extend the period of limitation, that each day of delay must be explained when seeking condonation, and that the law helps the diligent and not the indolent. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation without an application for condonation of delay is maintainable?
  • Does the submission of departmental representations and reminders extend the period of limitation for filing a service appeal?
  • Is it necessary for a party seeking condonation of delay to explain each day of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs State1998 MLD 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 453 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 7 others vs Azad Government and another1998 CLC 2052 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-16
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationleave to appealjudgment of affirmationburden of proofcompulsory acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-appeals regarding the quantum of compensation for land acquired for military purposes. The primary legal questions addressed were the maintainability of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court without leave in cases of affirmation by the High Court, and the principles governing the determination of market value for large tracts of land. The Court held that under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, an appeal as of right does not lie against a judgment of affirmation; however, the Court exercised its discretion to treat the memorandum of appeal as a petition for leave to appeal. On merits, the Court upheld the compensation fixed by the District Judge. The key principles laid down are that the price of small plots cannot form the basis for valuing large tracts, and claimants must demonstrate that acquired land possesses similar potential or utility as comparable properties. Furthermore, transactions occurring after the Section 4 notification require proof of bona fides by the claimant, and the burden remains on the claimant to establish the inadequacy of the Collector's award.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as a matter of right against a High Court judgment that affirms the decree of the lower court?
  • Can the price of small plots of land be used as the sole basis for determining the market value of a large tract of acquired land?
  • Is a claimant required to prove the bona fides of land transactions that occurred after the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the landowner to establish that the compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Kali and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamsul Huda vs Director-General, Federal Seed1998 SCMR 2202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-12
  seniority fixationservice appealres judicatanecessary partiestime-barredlimitation periodEast Pakistan employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Federal Service Tribunal judgment dismissing the appellant’s claim for seniority fixation and retrospective promotion. The appellant, a former employee of the defunct East Pakistan government, sought to count his entire prior service, including non-gazetted periods, towards his current seniority in Grade-17. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the appeal due to the non-impleadment of necessary parties, the application of res judicata regarding prior litigation, and whether the appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal, ruling that the appeal was time-barred as it was filed well after the Establishment Division’s final decision. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the appeal was not maintainable because the appellant failed to implead other officers whose seniority would be adversely affected by the relief sought. The Court also noted that the matter was hit by res judicata due to previous litigation. The principle established is that service appeals affecting the rights of other employees are not maintainable without impleading those necessary parties, and statutory limitation periods for service appeals must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable if the appellant fails to implead other employees whose seniority would be adversely affected?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to service appeals where the relief sought was previously adjudicated?
  • Can a service appeal be dismissed as time-barred if filed beyond the statutory period following a final departmental decision?
  • Is non-gazetted service rendered under the former Government of East Pakistan countable towards seniority in a current Federal Grade-17 post?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamsul Huda vs Director General, Federal Seed1998 PLC (C.S.) 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-12
  seniority fixationservice appealres judicatanecessary partieslimitationnon-impleadmentgazetted service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's claim for seniority fixation and retrospective promotion based on his prior service in the former East Pakistan. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant’s previous service was fully countable towards seniority, whether the appeal was barred by res judicata, and whether the non-impleadment of affected officers rendered the appeal non-maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly identified the matter as time-barred and hit by res judicata, given the appellant’s failure to challenge the Establishment Division's final decision within the statutory limitation period and his prior litigation for similar relief. The Court further affirmed the principle that an appeal is not maintainable if necessary parties, whose seniority would be adversely affected by the requested relief, are not impleaded. Additionally, the Court upheld the interpretation that under the Ex-employees of the former Government of East Pakistan (Appointment to Federal Posts) Ordinance 1983, only gazetted service periods are countable towards seniority, while non-gazetted service is excluded.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable if the appellant fails to implead necessary parties whose seniority would be adversely affected?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to service appeals where the relief sought was previously adjudicated in an earlier appeal?
  • Under the Ex-employees of the former Government of East Pakistan (Appointment to Federal Posts) Ordinance 1983, is non-gazetted service countable towards seniority?
  • Does a departmental memorandum regarding seniority fixation constitute a final order for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad Qazi vs Chairman, Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College_Ayub Medical College and 2 others1998 MLD 1243 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1299 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-01
  statutory baildelay in trialcar snatchingterrorismOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with car snatching under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant sought bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, invoking the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the statutory right to bail based on delay could be denied given the nature of the offense. The Sindh High Court held that while the third proviso grants a statutory right to bail, this right is subject to the fourth proviso of Section 497(1), which precludes bail for hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals or those involved in acts of terrorism. The Court determined that car snatching, due to its intimidatory nature and societal impact, constitutes an act of terrorism. Consequently, the Court ruled that the applicant was not entitled to bail despite the delay in trial, establishing that crimes of car snatching fall within the ambit of terrorism, thereby overriding the statutory right to bail based on delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory right to bail under the third proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to an accused involved in an act of terrorism?
  • Can the crime of car snatching be classified as an act of terrorism for the purposes of bail adjudication?
  • Does the fourth proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 override the statutory right to bail based on delay in trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Tareen vs Water & Power Development Authority1998 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  transfer of civil servantmala fidesservice tribunalpublic interestpostings and transferspetitionerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his transfer from Quetta to Lahore by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner contended that the transfer was premature, mala fide, and made as punishment because he had objected to certain irregular appointments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's transfer was vitiated by mala fides or violation of tenure rules. The Supreme Court held that the plea of mala fides was an afterthought not raised in the departmental representation, that transfers can be made in the exigency of service for administrative reasons in the public interest, and that a civil servant has no vested right to a posting of their choice. The Court affirmed that the petitioner was not holding a tenure post and was liable to be transferred anywhere. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can challenge a transfer order on the ground of mala fides when such a plea was not raised in the departmental representation?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim a posting of their choice?
  • Can a civil servant be transferred before the completion of a tenure period in the exigency of service for administrative reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique alias Chheela and another vs The State1998 MLD 299 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq-Ur-Rehman vs D.L.R, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 131 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Chaudhry vs Province of Punjab through Chief1998 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-05
  election postponementinterlocutory orderjudicial interferencelaw and orderElection Commissionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which suspended the scheduled election for Constituency NA-102, Sheikhupura. The Election Commission had previously declined a request by the Provincial Government to postpone the election due to alleged law and order concerns, noting that the administration was capable of maintaining peace. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in suspending the election process through an interlocutory order after the Chief Election Commissioner had already adjudicated the matter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in its interference. The Court reasoned that the Chief Election Commissioner had properly considered the law and order situation, and the candidates themselves had expressed their desire for the election to proceed as scheduled. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interlocutory order, emphasizing that the administration is responsible for maintaining law and order during elections and that judicial interference in such electoral processes should be limited.

  Questions settled

  • Is a High Court justified in suspending an election schedule through an interlocutory order after the Election Commission has already decided against postponement?
  • Does the responsibility for maintaining law and order during an election lie with the administration or the Election Commission?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq 5 others vs Political Agent, Khyber Agency and 71998 P Cr. L J 1347 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi and others1998 CLC 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Nazir Begum and another1998 CLC 649 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Hamid1998 MLD 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Gujar vs The Superintending Engineer1998 PLC (C.S.) 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and anothers vs Muhammad Ishaque and others1998 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-27
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionunregistered gift deedcompulsory registrationmutationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of pre-emption suits filed by the respondents claiming a superior right of pre-emption as owners in the estate against the petitioners, who had purchased agricultural land in village Bodi, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot. The trial court decreed the suits, but the appellate court set them aside, finding the petitioners were also owners in the estate based on a gift deed. Upon revision, the Lahore High Court accepted the respondents' revision petitions, holding that the unregistered gift deed relied upon by the petitioners required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908, was anti-dated, and did not confer ownership rights. The core legal question was whether the unregistered gift deed effectively made the petitioners owners in the estate so as to defeat the pre-emptors' superior right. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings of fact, holding that the gift deed was inadmissible to create rights and that the petitions lacked merit. The court affirmed that an unregistered instrument which purports to create a gift of immovable property requiring registration under the Registration Act 1908 is ineffective to confer ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered gift deed that purports to create rights in immovable property requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can a mutation sanctioned on the basis of an unregistered and inadmissible gift deed confer ownership status to establish a superior right of pre-emption?
  • Whether findings of fact recorded by the High Court regarding the authenticity and anti-dating of a gift deed warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafeeq vs Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Finance1998 PLC (C.S.) 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabir vs Muhammad Munir and 2 others1998 MLD 1312 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Zulfiqar and others1998 SCMR 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20
  specific performanceagreement to sellattesting witnessesleave to appealcontract of saleregistration of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was dismissed by the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, and subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The primary legal controversy concerns whether a plaintiff is legally obligated to examine all attesting witnesses to an agreement to sell to prove the validity of the contract. The petitioner contended that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit solely due to the failure to examine one of the attesting witnesses, arguing that an agreement to sell does not constitute a perfect contract of sale and thus does not require registration under the relevant property laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in a prior, identical matter (Civil Petition No. 1368/L of 1993) regarding the necessity of examining such witnesses, determined that the instant petition raised a substantial question of law requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this recurring legal issue.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a plaintiff to examine all attesting witnesses to prove an agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance?
  • Does an agreement to sell constitute a perfect contract of sale requiring registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1998 SCMR 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-03
  petition for leave to appealdeath sentencemurder referenceacquittal of co-accusedbenefit of doubtconflict between ocular and medical evidenceenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the petitioner/convict against the judgment of a Lahore High Court Division Bench which dismissed his criminal appeal and confirmed his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and several co-accused attacked and caused the deaths of three persons and injured another, with a specific fatal gunshot injury attributed to the petitioner. At trial, all co-accused were acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, leaving only the petitioner convicted and sentenced to death. The petitioner contended that he could not be convicted on the same evidence that failed against his co-accused amid established enmity, and pointed out conflicts between ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the trial court and the High Court were justified on the record in recording and maintaining the conviction and the capital sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court and the High Court are justified in convicting and awarding capital punishment to one accused on the same evidence that was disbelieved to grant benefit of doubt and acquit co-accused?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where an alleged conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence exists alongside background enmity between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The Director, Administration, F.I.A. and 15 others1998 SCMR 2409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-12
  civil servicesenioritypro forma promotionforced resignationdepartmental promotionwrongful actreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service matter where the appellant, a Constable in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), challenged the denial of his seniority and pro forma promotion. The appellant had been forced to resign under coercion and duress, a period during which his juniors were promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspectors. Upon reinstatement, the department denied him retrospective seniority, citing his failure to complete the mandatory Intermediate Training Course in time. The core legal question was whether the department could deny seniority based on a qualification requirement when the employee's inability to meet that requirement was directly caused by the department's own wrongful act of forced resignation. The Supreme Court held that the department could not benefit from its own wrongdoing. It ruled that the appellant was entitled to pro forma promotion and seniority from the date his juniors were promoted, as the department's illegal act prevented him from timely qualification. The principle laid down is that a civil servant is entitled to the restoration of original seniority and consequential benefits if their career progression was hindered by the wrongful acts of the departmental authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion and seniority if they were kept out of service due to coercion and duress?
  • Can a department deny seniority based on a qualification requirement when the employee was prevented from acquiring that qualification due to the department's own wrongful act?
  • Can the failure to hold a Departmental Promotion Committee for an extended period be used to prejudice an employee's seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 4 others vs Haji Muhammad Hussain and 41998 SCMR 1938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-29
  limitationcertified copiespetition for leave to appealfraudinterpolationscontempt of courtintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal arising from a writ petition decision of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns the issue of limitation and whether a party can rely on certified copies obtained by another person to bring a petition for leave to appeal within time. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot usurp the certified copies obtained by another person or use them to extend their own period of limitation for filing an appeal. The Court ruled that the appeal was barred by time and dismissed it accordingly, while also disposing of a related contempt petition as premature pending an ongoing inquiry in the High Court regarding record interpolations. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court must independently obtain certified copies in a timely manner and cannot benefit from copies obtained by a stranger to their own cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can use certified copies obtained by another person to bring a petition seeking leave to appeal within time?
  • What is the legal status of a petition or appeal when it is taken back by a party or returned from the office to complete necessary formalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1998 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-25
  leave to appealnarcotics possessionchain of custodyevidentiary discrepancyprohibition lawbail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner was convicted for the possession of 4550 grams of heroin. The core legal questions raised by the petitioner concern the integrity of the chain of custody regarding the seized contraband. Specifically, the petitioner challenges the prosecution's case on the grounds that the heroin packets were unsealed and sampled at the F.I.A. Headquarters in his absence, four days after the seizure, and that there is a significant, unexplained discrepancy between the number of packets seized (four) and the number of packets produced in court (eleven). The Supreme Court, finding these contentions worthy of consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine the evidentiary implications of these procedural lapses. However, the Court declined the petitioner's request for bail pending the final disposal of the appeal, while simultaneously directing that the appeal be scheduled for an early regular hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained discrepancy between the number of contraband packets seized and those produced in court warrant leave to appeal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the chain of custody for seized narcotics is challenged due to the unsealing and sampling of evidence in the absence of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim alias Samin vs The State and others1998 MLD 1086 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem-II, Stenographer, Establishment Division, Islamabad1998 PLC (C.S.) 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-12
  selection gradeservice tribunalantedated promotionseniority listleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking the grant of selection grade in BPS-16 with effect from an earlier date of 25-4-1994 instead of 27-11-1994. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the selection grade from the date a vacancy allegedly accrued or from the date of actual notification and eligibility according to seniority, and whether the Tribunal could direct promotions of third parties to create vacancies. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's factual premise regarding the accrual of vacancies was incorrect and that promotions and selection grades cannot be antedated by judicial fiat without due process and approval by the Competent Authority. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that no injustice was done, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, laying down the principle that selection grades are processed according to law and cannot be claimed from a backdate when the employee was not eligible or when the vacancy had not accrued.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee is entitled to claim a selection grade from the date a vacancy allegedly accrued rather than the date of actual grant based on seniority?
  • Can a service tribunal order promotions of persons who are not party before it to create vacancies for another employee?
  • Is a selection grade effective from a backdate prior to its approval by the Competent Authority in accordance with the rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem-II, Stenographer vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-18
  civil servicepromotionseniority listspecial payFederal Service Tribunalre-litigationleave to appeal refused
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal were filed by a Stenographer of the Establishment Division challenging two separate judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995. In the first matter, the petitioner claimed he was wrongly bypassed for promotion to the post of Private Secretary (B-17). The Tribunal found that the petitioner ranked at Serial No. 16 in the seniority list and that all private respondents promoted ahead of him were senior to him. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner conceded that no junior person had been promoted. In the second matter, the petitioner claimed an enhanced special pay of Rs. 150 instead of Rs. 120 per month. The Tribunal had dismissed this claim on the ground that the petitioner’s entitlement to special pay had already been adjudicated and settled at Rs. 120 per month in his earlier appeal decided on 1-2-1995, barring re-litigation of the same issue. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on both counts, holding that no ground for interference was established, and accordingly dismissed both petitions, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant maintain a claim for promotion where no person junior to him in the relevant seniority list has been promoted?
  • Can an employee re-agitate a claim for enhanced special pay before the Service Tribunal when the exact entitlement was already determined in a previously decided appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Ilyas and others1998 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Deputy Inspector-General Police, Bahawalpur1998 MLD 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Altaf HussainK.L.R 1998 Civil Cases 571 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs Chief Secretary and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 5 otherss vs Administrator, Karachi1998 CLC 1952 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad and others vs Chairman, P.N.C.B., Islamabad and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 936 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad Alias Toni vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 48) · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 106 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safian vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Water and Power Development Authority1998 PLC (C.S.) 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-08
  leave to appealcharge-sheetdismissal from serviceNational Industrial Relations CommissionService Tribunalex parte orderdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging his dismissal from service. The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was served with a charge-sheet alleging corruption and drawing excessive material from the store. He challenged the charge-sheet before the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which set it aside through an ex parte order. Despite this order, WAPDA continued inquiry proceedings and subsequently dismissed the petitioner from service. The core legal question is whether disciplinary proceedings and a dismissal order based on a charge-sheet previously set aside by a competent forum have any legal effect. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the nullity of proceedings conducted pursuant to a set-aside charge-sheet requires detailed consideration, thereby establishing that departmental proceedings cannot validly continue on the basis of a charge annulled by a judicial or quasi-judicial forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental proceedings and a dismissal order based on a charge-sheet that has been set aside by the National Industrial Relations Commission are of any legal effect?
  • Can an employer continue disciplinary proceedings pursuant to a charge-sheet annulled by a competent quasi-judicial forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Water and Power Development Authority1998 SCMR 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-08
  disciplinary proceedingscharge-sheetNIRCdismissal from serviceservice tribunallegal effect of set-aside order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of WAPDA, challenged his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated by a charge-sheet dated 21-1-1993. The petitioner had previously successfully challenged this charge-sheet before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which set it aside via an ex parte order on 21-2-1993. Despite this order, WAPDA continued the disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the petitioner on 26-5-1994. The petitioner's subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal was dismissed, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether disciplinary proceedings and a subsequent dismissal order can remain valid when the foundational charge-sheet has been set aside by a competent forum (NIRC). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the legal nullity of proceedings based on a set-aside charge-sheet warrants deeper consideration. The key principle is that disciplinary actions predicated on a charge-sheet that has been judicially annulled may be rendered legally ineffective, necessitating a review of the validity of the subsequent dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings continue if the underlying charge-sheet has been set aside by a competent forum?
  • Does a dismissal order based on a charge-sheet that was previously set aside by the NIRC possess legal validity?
  • Is a dismissal order rendered ineffective if the foundational charge-sheet is annulled?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Sajjawal Khan and 2 others1998 MLD 823 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Waseer vs D.F.C., Sialkot and others1998 P Cr. L J 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-27
  unsoundness of mindincapacity to stand trialpreliminary inquirymandatory proceduremedical evidencerevision petitioncriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, which summarily determined that the petitioner was of sound mind and fit to stand trial, despite conflicting medical reports regarding his capacity. The core legal question was whether a trial court can summarily decide an accused's unsoundness of mind without conducting a formal inquiry as mandated by law. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the petitioner's mental state. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to hold a formal inquiry, which must include the examination of the medical professionals who authored the conflicting reports and provide both the prosecution and the defense an opportunity to present evidence. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory; a trial court is legally obligated to try the fact of an accused's unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make a defense as a preliminary step before proceeding with the main trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to hold a formal inquiry into an accused's unsoundness of mind before proceeding with the trial?
  • Does the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Can a trial court determine an accused's capacity to stand trial based solely on written medical reports without examining the medical experts in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Kashif Khan and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saee vs Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited through General Manager_Factory Manager, Jhelum1998 PLC 384 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Allah Ditta1998 CLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Shah vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 768 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs The State1998 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  post-arrest baildelayed F.I.R.extra-judicial confessionmurderreasonable groundscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously denied bail to the petitioners in a murder case. The core legal question was whether, given the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.)—which occurred six months after the incident—and the nature of the evidence presented, there existed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed the alleged offence. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's reliance on an extra-judicial confession and the motive attributed to the petitioners. The Court held that, upon review, reasonable grounds did not exist to believe the petitioners had committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on weak or delayed evidence, and reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the offence are absent, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a six-month delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for granting bail when the prosecution's evidence is otherwise weak?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to deny bail when other evidence is lacking?
  • What is the standard for granting bail in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sachal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1597 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-13
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsischaemic heart diseasesicknesscriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the accused Muhammad Sachal, facing trial under sections 302, 504, 452, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Crime No. 38 of 1998 registered at Police Station Airport, following the rejection of his earlier bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of serious sickness and ailment. The court held that a sufficient case for bail was made out based on the medical certificate issued by a Cardiologist at Chandka Medical College Hospital, Larkana, indicating that the applicant suffers from Ischaemic Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and that continued detention would be detrimental to his life. The key principle laid down is that where medical opinions substantiate that an accused person's detention in jail poses a threat to their life due to severe illness, post-arrest bail may be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused suffering from Ischaemic Heart Disease is entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
  • Does continued detention of a seriously ill accused person provide sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can a bail application be pressed solely on the basis of a medical certificate issued by a recognized hospital cardiologist?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan Essani, J Mushtaq Ali vs Government of Sindh1998 PLD Karachi 416 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-02
  public interest litigationoctroi contractsea dueslocus standiconstitutional petitionmonopolypublic revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed pro bono publico by a freelance journalist challenging the legality of octroi and sea dues collection contracts awarded by the Government of Sindh and the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) in relation to the newly activated Qasim International Containers Terminal (QICT) at Port Muhammad Bin Qasim (PQA). The core legal question concerned whether the private contractor, Bolan Enterprises, had the lawful authority to collect sea dues and octroi from the PQA source under negotiated contracts that bypassed open competitive auctions, thereby causing massive public revenue losses. The Sindh High Court held that the negotiated contract was manipulated, the inclusion of the PQA source under the contractor's purview was unauthorized, and the contract terms must be interpreted beneficially to protect public interest and revenue. The court laid down the principle that the concept of an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 has a broader scope in public interest litigation, allowing a citizen or relator to challenge actions transgressing public rights and causing revenue loss, without requiring direct personal injury.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed pro bono publico is maintainable by a citizen who is not a direct affectee of the impugned administrative action?
  • Can a local authority award high-value municipal contracts through secret negotiations instead of transparent public auctions?
  • How should ambiguous contractual terms and statutory rules affecting public revenue be interpreted by courts?
  • Whether the concept of an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 extends to a relator challenging the loss of public revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-17
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencejudicial confessionQanun-e-Shahadatproviso to Section 497 CrPCcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications arising from FIR No. 110 of 1996: an application for the cancellation of bail granted to a female co-accused and an application for the grant of bail to the male petitioner. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of circumstantial evidence, the validity of a judicial confession, and the entitlement to bail in the absence of direct evidence. The Court held that the bail cancellation application for the female accused should be dismissed, as she is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidence against her was insufficient. Conversely, the Court rejected the male petitioner's bail application, finding that his conduct—specifically the recovery of the deceased's vehicle and his judicial confession—established a prima facie case. The key principle laid down is that while a court may tentatively assess evidence at the bail stage, it must avoid prejudging the merits of the case, particularly regarding the voluntariness of a confession, which remains a matter for the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a pointation memo prepared at the instance of an accused in custody admissible as evidence if no discovery is made?
  • Does the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide special consideration for female accused in bail matters?
  • Can a court at the bail stage definitively determine the voluntariness of a judicial confession?
  • Does the absence of eye-witnesses in a murder case automatically entitle an accused to bail when circumstantial evidence exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz, Director-General, Pakistan Public Works1998 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31
  preliminary observationswrit petitionservice disciplineprejudicial remarkscivil serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court during the preliminary stage of a pending writ petition. The High Court had made observations suggesting that the petitioner’s conduct was inconsistent with service discipline and indicated that he might be personally liable for costs and subject to further adverse remarks in the final judgment. The petitioner, the Director-General of the Pakistan Public Works Department, contended that these preliminary observations were prejudicial and would unfairly influence the final adjudication of the writ petition. Upon the petitioner’s submission that he would withdraw the appeal if the High Court were directed to decide the matter on its merits without regard to these preliminary remarks, and with the respondent offering no objection, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The Court directed that the High Court must decide the writ petition strictly on its merits, ensuring that the final judgment remains uninfluenced by the earlier observations made against the petitioner regarding his conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court make preliminary observations regarding a party's conduct that might prejudice the final adjudication of a writ petition?
  • Is a party entitled to have a writ petition decided on its merits without being influenced by preliminary remarks made by the court?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be withdrawn if the court issues a clarifying direction regarding the impartiality of the lower court's future proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz, Director-General, Pakistan Public Works1998 PLC (C.S.) 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31
  interlocutory orderjudicial observationsprejudicewrit jurisdictionservice disciplinefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in a pending writ petition. The petitioner, the Director-General of the Pakistan Public Works Department, challenged specific observations made by the High Court regarding his conduct, which suggested potential disciplinary implications and personal liability for costs should the writ petition be accepted. The core legal question concerned whether such preliminary observations, made before the final adjudication of the case, could prejudice the fair determination of the matter on its merits. Upon the petitioner's request to have the writ petition decided without the influence of these prior remarks, and with the respondent's counsel expressing no objection to this course of action, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition. The Court held that the High Court must decide the underlying writ petition strictly on its own merits, uninfluenced by the preliminary observations made against the petitioner. The principle established is that judicial observations regarding a party's conduct made at a preliminary stage should not fetter or prejudice the final adjudication of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court judge make preliminary observations regarding a party's conduct that might influence the final decision of a writ petition?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to direct that a pending writ petition be decided on its merits without being influenced by prior interlocutory observations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 320 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-03
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailcontinuous detentionmurder trialconclusion of trialadjournment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from the Shariat Court's dismissal of the appellant's bail application in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 341 of the Azad Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act. The appellant sought bail on the statutory ground of delay under the amended Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, having remained incarcerated for continuous detention exceeding the statutory threshold while the trial remained uncompleted. The trial Court and Shariat Court had refused bail on grounds that the delay was shared and the trial was near conclusion, with only four witnesses left. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' orders and granted bail. It held that once the statutory period of continuous detention exceeds two years—even after excluding any delay attributable to the accused or their counsel—the accused is entitled to bail. Near conclusion of trial is not a statutory exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with an offence punishable with death is entitled to bail where continuous detention exceeds two years excluding any delay occasioned by the accused or their counsel?
  • Can a court refuse statutory bail on the ground that the trial is at the verge of conclusion because only a few prosecution witnesses remain to be examined?
  • How is the statutory period of delay calculated under the amended Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when adjournments have been sought by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Noor-Ul-Islam and 2 others1998 CLC 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Ghulam Abbask.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Collector, Okara And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 25) · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Mehdi vs The Vice-Chancellor_Chairman Syndicate, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-11
  constitutional petitionuniversity appointmentSelection Boardmaster and servant rulejudicial revieweligibility and fitnessmaladministration
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, who was recommended by the Selection Board and approved by the Syndicate of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology for appointment as an Assistant Professor, but was denied the appointment letter. The core legal question concerned whether a public university can withhold an appointment letter after selection and Syndicate approval, and whether the master-servant rule applies to bar constitutional jurisdiction in such cases. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that once a candidate is found fit and approved by the competent authority, issuing the appointment letter is a ministerial act that cannot be arbitrarily withheld, and failure to do so amounts to maladministration and discrimination. The court laid down the principle that the master-servant rule has no absolute application to public bodies amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, and questions of eligibility are open to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of an appointment letter after selection by the Selection Board and approval by the Syndicate is a ministerial act that cannot be withheld?
  • Does the master-servant rule have absolute application in relation to public bodies amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of a superior Court?
  • Are questions of eligibility open to judicial review while issues touching fitness or suitability generally enjoy immunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Baqir vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Commerce, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 565 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Shafi vs Managing Director and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 848 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasab and another vs Muhammad Siddiquie Chaudhry1998 MLD 2045 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-28
  specific performanceinterim injunctionstatus quoprima facie casebalance of convenienceland disputeappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance concerning a land dispute where the plaintiffs-appellants sought an interim injunction to maintain the status quo. The trial court and the High Court had previously refused the injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case due to discrepancies regarding the Khasra number of the suit land. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir appointed a local Tehsildar to conduct a spot inspection, whose report supported the plaintiffs' claim. The Court held that the High Court erred by conducting a premature, detailed inquiry into the merits of the case during the interim injunction stage. The Supreme Court emphasized that for interim relief, a plaintiff need only demonstrate a prima facie arguable case and the balance of convenience, rather than proving absolute title. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and ordered the maintenance of the status quo until the trial court concludes the proceedings, directing that the trial court should not be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the appellate courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of an interim injunction require the plaintiff to prove their title to the suit property?
  • Should a court conduct a detailed inquiry into the merits of a case when deciding an application for an interim injunction?
  • What is the standard for determining the balance of convenience in an application for a temporary injunction?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to prejudge the merits of a suit while deciding an appeal against an interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Iqbal, Sub-Inspector Police, District Kehari Mitroo and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 828 · Lahore High Court
  quashing of FIRnarcotics controlinvestigation irregularityjurisdiction of police officerdirectory provisionswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an F.I.R. registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where 30 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the petitioner by a Sub-Inspector of Police. The core legal question was whether a raid and investigation conducted by a police officer not specially authorized by notification under the Act vitiates the proceedings and warrants the quashing of the F.I.R. The Lahore High Court held that while section 21(1) of the Act requires a competent officer to initiate proceedings, the absence of explicit penal consequences for unauthorized investigation renders these provisions directory rather than mandatory. Applying the principle of legislation by reference through section 47 of the Act and section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court concluded that irregularities or illegalities during an investigation or by an unauthorized officer do not vitiate the trial or provide grounds to quash an F.I.R. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the authorization of police officers are mandatory or directory?
  • Does an investigation conducted by a police officer not duly authorized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vitiate the proceedings?
  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. on the ground of an irregularity or illegality committed during the police investigation?
  • Are the provisions of section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Khalil AhmadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Government of the Punjab and anothers1998 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-08
  service tribunalinterlocutory orderrepatriationleave to appealprocedural discretiontribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order passed by Member-I of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which recalled an earlier interlocutory order suspending the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department. The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Officer, contended that the initial suspension order was passed by the Chairman and that the appeal had been assigned to Member-II, thereby rendering Member-I incompetent to recall the suspension. The core legal question was whether the tribunal's internal assignment of cases precluded a member from recalling an interlocutory order passed by the Chairman. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that the appeal was exclusively assigned to Member-II or that any rule prohibited Member-I from recalling the order. Noting that the recall of the suspension was consistent with the tribunal's practice in similar cases and that the main appeal remained pending, the Court held that the impugned order was legally sound. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming that no exception could be taken to the tribunal's exercise of its procedural discretion in interlocutory matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a member of the Punjab Service Tribunal recall an interlocutory suspension order passed by the Chairman?
  • Does the assignment of an appeal to a specific member of a service tribunal preclude other members from passing interlocutory orders in that matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Abbas Ali and 2 others1998 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-28
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderocular evidencemedical evidencereappraisal of evidencesafe administration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted the appeals of the convicts, Liaqat Ali and Abbas Ali, thereby setting aside their convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitting them. The trial court had previously convicted both individuals for murder and acquitted three co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The petitioner argued that the ocular account provided by the prosecution witnesses was of unimpeachable character and was supported by medical evidence, making the High Court's acquittal whimsical and unsupported by the record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a reappraisal of the prosecution evidence was necessary for the safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment of acquittal by the High Court can be interfered with if it is not based on cogent and valid reasons?
  • Under what circumstances is a reappraisal of prosecution evidence warranted by the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal?
  • Does the corroboration of ocular account by medical evidence justify the grant of leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs (Mst.) Amanat BibiK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 54 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiqulislam vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1262 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-12
  explosive substancessanction for prosecutionrecovery witnesscriminal appealconviction and sentence set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of conviction passed under the Explosive Substances Act, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was proved to be in possession of the hand-grenade based on the evidence, and whether the absence of the requisite consent of the Provincial Government under section 7 of the said Act vitiates the trial. The court held that the prosecution failed to produce reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence regarding the recovery, and further found that the trial was conducted in express violation of the mandatory provision requiring prior sanction from the Provincial Government for prosecution. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that the sanction for prosecution under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act is a mandatory condition precedent, the absence of which renders the entire trial void and without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of the requisite consent of the Provincial Government under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act vitiates the trial?
  • Can a conviction be maintained on the sole testimony of a recovery witness whose deposition is inconsistent with the First Information Report?
  • Is the sanction for prosecution under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act a mandatory condition precedent for holding a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The District Council, Rawalpindi through Administrator_Chief Officer and anothers1998 SCMR 2331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-10
  auction leaseGoods Exit Taxhighest bidre-auctionpublic interestpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the rejection of his highest bid for the lease of Goods Exit Tax for the year 1995-96 by the Deputy Commissioner/Administrator of the Zila Council, Rawalpindi, and the subsequent ordering of a re-auction in the public interest. The core legal question concerned the validity of the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the order for re-auction. During the hearing, it transpired that a re-auction yielded a substantially higher bid of Rs. 7,31,00,000 compared to the petitioner's bid of Rs. 4,21,00,000. While the petitioner contended the re-auction violated a stay order and was bogus, the Supreme Court directed the Administrator of the Zila Council to proceed with confirmation proceedings for the re-auction in accordance with law and adjourned the petition for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the competent authority can reject the highest bid for a tax collection lease and order a re-auction in the public interest?
  • Can a petitioner challenge the rejection of an auction bid through constitutional jurisdiction when a higher bid is subsequently received in a re-auction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Abdul Qadir Shah and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 932 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Tarrar vs Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, BLOCK's, Secretariat, IslamabadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 648 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi and 5 others1998 CLC 265 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-21
  specific performanceimmovable propertytime is of the essenceabandonment of contractwaiverearnest moneylimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court had dismissed the suit, concluding that the appellants failed to perform their contractual obligations by not appearing before the Sub-Registrar to execute the sale deed. The core legal questions were whether time was of the essence in the contract and whether the appellants had abandoned their rights due to delay in filing the suit. The High Court held that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is not of the essence unless explicitly stipulated, and the respondent failed to prove abandonment or waiver. The Court found that the appellants had paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and the respondent failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment, ruling that mere delay, short of the statutory limitation period, does not disentitle a plaintiff to specific performance. The key principle laid down is that specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property can be granted even after the expiry of the period fixed in the contract, provided the delay does not infer abandonment or waiver.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property in the absence of an express stipulation?
  • Does delay in filing a suit for specific performance, if within the limitation period, automatically constitute abandonment of the contract?
  • Can a court grant specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property after the expiry of the period fixed in the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Laddu vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Laddu Versus vs The State1998 KLR Criminal cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Secretary, Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1998 SCMR 2631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04
  repatriationcivil servantlienparent departmentservice tribunaldeputation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 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 Finance Division. The appellant, initially an Assistant in the Finance Division, was appointed to the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat with a retained right of reversion and lien in his parent department. He was subsequently promoted within the Ombudsman's Secretariat but was later repatriated to the Finance Division. The core legal question was whether an employee appointed to the Ombudsman's Secretariat with a retained lien in a parent department could challenge repatriation or claim a permanent right to stay and be promoted in the Ombudsman's Secretariat. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant retained his lien in the parent department and was never permanently absorbed in the Ombudsman's Secretariat, his repatriation was legally valid and unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant serving on terms involving a retained lien in a parent department has no vested right to resist repatriation upon the request of the competent authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant repatriated to their parent department challenge the reversion when their lien was retained throughout their service in the new organization?
  • Does an employee appointed to the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat with a right of reversion acquire a permanent right to absorption or promotion in that Secretariat?
  • Whether the repatriation of an employee holding a retained lien in a parent department amounts to an unlawful reduction in rank without disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Ghulam Murtaza1998 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadstatutory noticeco-sharerrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner claiming a right of pre-emption regarding the sale of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit upon finding that the petitioner failed to duly establish the requisite Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand), and the lower appellate court affirmed this decision. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether the petitioner successfully proved the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the requisite sitting or meeting (Majlis) and whether Talb-i-Ishhad was legally established without proving the receipt of the statutory notice by the vendee. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, noting that the oral testimony regarding the immediate demand was an afterthought and that the mere issuance of a notice without proving its delivery or postal receipt did not satisfy the legal requirements. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the failure to fulfill these mandatory statutory demands extinguishes the right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat extinguishes the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Is the mere production of a statutory notice for Talb-i-Ishhad sufficient without proving its receipt by the vendee?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be maintained without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Tarrar vs Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-09
  presidential electionnomination papersjudicial reviewdisqualificationlegislation by referenceconstitutional interpretationreturning officerouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter concerns the rejection of nomination papers for the Office of the President of Pakistan by the Acting Chief Election Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether the Returning Officer could apply disqualification criteria under Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to a presidential candidate, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review this decision. The Court held that the Returning Officer acted in excess of jurisdiction. It established that Article 63 is inapplicable to presidential candidates, as Article 41(2) only incorporates qualifications under Article 62. The Court further ruled that under the principle of "legislation by reference," subsequent amendments to Article 63 cannot be retroactively applied to Article 41(2). Additionally, the Court affirmed that its power of judicial review under Article 199 remains exercisable against orders that are void, without jurisdiction, or mala fide, notwithstanding constitutional ouster clauses. Consequently, the Court declared the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers to be without lawful authority and confirmed his eligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Returning Officer apply disqualification criteria under Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to a candidate for the Office of the President?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 to review an order of the Returning Officer regarding the rejection of nomination papers for the presidential election?
  • Are the concepts of qualification and disqualification interchangeable under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the principle of legislation by reference mean that subsequent amendments to a referred statute do not apply to the referring statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Tarar vs Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan. Islamabad and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12
  Presidential electionnomination papersdisqualificationjudicial reviewjurisdictional errorinterim reliefconstitutional petitionReturning Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for the office of the President of Pakistan by the Returning Officer/Chief Election Commissioner, who cited disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions concern whether the Returning Officer correctly applied disqualification criteria to a Presidential candidate and whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to intervene in the election process despite the bar in Article 41(6) of the Constitution. The Court confirmed the interim order allowing the petitioner to participate in the election, holding that while Article 41(6) generally bars questioning election validity, the Court retains jurisdiction to intervene if an action is patently illegal, void, or suffers from jurisdictional error. The Court observed that qualifications under Article 62 and disqualifications under Article 63 are distinct concepts, and the Returning Officer likely erred in applying the latter to the nomination. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the election, declining to restrain the notification of results, as the election process must proceed within the constitutionally mandated timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review an election-related order if the action is alleged to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction?
  • Are the qualifications for a Presidential candidate and the disqualifications of a Member of Parliament distinct legal concepts?
  • Can a Returning Officer reject a Presidential nomination based on disqualification criteria applicable to Members of Parliament?
  • Should a court restrain the notification of election results while a challenge to a candidate's nomination is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq alias Kukoo and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Divisional Engineer Phone, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvez vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 1270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-06
  court martialright of appealretrospective operationstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionarmed forcesdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition that sought to compel the provision of an appellate remedy for a convict sentenced to death by a Field General Court Martial. The convict, Ex-Captain Arshad Jameel, was sentenced on October 5, 1992, and his sentence was confirmed on October 29, 1992. The petitioner argued that a right of appeal should be deemed available from January 1, 1989, based on prior directions from the Shariat Appellate Bench regarding the amendment of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be inferred by implication. The Court observed that Section 133-B, which introduced the right of appeal, was inserted into the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, only upon receiving Presidential assent on December 22, 1992. As the convict’s case had reached finality before this date, and the amendment was not retrospective, the Court affirmed that no right of appeal existed at the time of his conviction. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of appeal a creature of statute that cannot be inferred by implication?
  • Does the right of appeal provided by Section 133-B of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 have retrospective effect?
  • Can a right of appeal be deemed available before the formal enactment and Presidential assent of the amending statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Noor Muhammad And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 5) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and others vs Niaz Ali1998 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1957-06-02
  pre-emptionleave to appealmaintainability of suitcut-off dateremand ordersuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land in District Rawalpindi. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court remanded the case for further findings. The High Court subsequently set aside the remand order and dismissed the suit, relying on the principle that pre-emption suits filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which were not decreed by 31-7-1986, were no longer maintainable following the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that a decree in their favour had actually been passed by the trial court on 9-4-1980, prior to the cut-off date. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in its assumption that no decree had been passed in favour of the petitioners, thereby incorrectly applying the principle that the suit was not maintainable. The core legal question is whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable if a decree was obtained prior to the cut-off date established by case law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emption suit filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, lose its maintainability if no decree was passed by 31-7-1986?
  • Can a High Court dismiss a pre-emption suit based on the assumption that no decree was passed, if the record indicates a decree was obtained prior to the relevant cut-off date?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs Haider Zaman and others1998 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-15
  murdercommutation of sentencebenefit of doubtover-implicationocular testimonycriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a criminal case concerning the murder of the petitioner's son. The trial court convicted the primary accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death, while acquitting the remaining co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt. Upon appeal and revision, the High Court maintained the conviction of the principal accused but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, upholding the acquittal of the other co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction and sentence of the main accused and the acquittal of the co-accused warranted interference, particularly regarding the appreciation of ocular and recovery evidence in criminal cases involving rural enmity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence and extension of the benefit of doubt to co-accused were unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Can the acquittal of co-accused be set aside when the courts below have reasonably extended the benefit of doubt due to the tendency of over-implication in rural enmities?
  • Is the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life by the High Court open to interference when based on sound judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kahuta, District Rawalpindi and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kahuta, District Rawalpindi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs State1998 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07
  criminal appealcompounding of offencecompromiselegal heirsacquittalhomicideforgiveness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant, Muhammad Nawaz Shah, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of two individuals, Syed Nau Bahar Shah and Waryam, alongside convictions for causing injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise (compounding of the offence) reached between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased, given that the heirs had forgiven the accused in the name of Allah and submitted verified affidavits to that effect. The Court, upon verifying the presence and statements of the legal heirs and the injured witnesses, accepted the compromise. The ratio of the decision is that where legal heirs of the deceased have voluntarily forgiven the accused and confirmed this before the Court, the conviction may be set aside. The key principle laid down is that the compounding of offences, particularly in homicide cases, is permissible upon the valid and verified consent of the legal heirs of the deceased, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be set aside based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Is the verification of affidavits by legal heirs in open court sufficient to establish a valid compromise for the purpose of acquittal?
  • Does the forgiveness of the accused by the legal heirs of the deceased warrant the immediate release of the convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State1998 MLD 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →