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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Nawaz and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Garh1998 P Cr. L J 1512 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir Khan vs The District and Sessions Judge, Khanewal1998 PLC (C.S.) 254 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir Butt and 5 others vs Nisar Hussain Khan and 6 others1998 PLC 363 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naseer Khan vs Federal Government and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding the grant of ante-dated promotion and selection grade. The petitioner, an Auditor, claimed discrimination, alleging that while other cadres in the Office of the Auditor-General of Pakistan received selection grade benefits based on sanctioned strength, he was denied similar treatment for his specific grade. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to claim ante-dated promotion and selection grade benefits after a significant delay of eleven years, particularly when he had previously accepted his promotion without objection and withdrawn a prior related petition upon satisfaction of his grievances. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. The Court held that the petitioner's claim was time-barred and lacked merit given the long delay in seeking relief and the absence of prior representation. The judgment reinforces the principle that service-related grievances regarding promotion and seniority must be agitated within a reasonable timeframe and cannot be re-opened after long periods of acquiescence.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim ante-dated promotion after an unexplained delay of over a decade?
- Does the withdrawal of a prior petition regarding service grievances preclude the re-agitation of similar claims?
- Is a service tribunal justified in dismissing a claim for selection grade where the petitioner failed to make timely representations?
- Muhammad Naeem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem Khan and another vs Mst. Amir Begum1998 MLD 57 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nadir Khan vs S.H.O. Police Station Chunian District, Kasur, EtcK.L.R. 1998 Criminal. Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nadeem vs The State1998 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fatal road accident. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was driving without a license and that the offence constituted Qatl-bis-Sabab under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thus opposing bail. The Lahore High Court held that the case prima facie fell under Section 320, which is a bailable offence. The Court clarified that the absence of a driving license does not convert an offence of rash and negligent driving into a more serious charge, as the gravamen of the offence is the negligent act itself, not the possession of a license. Furthermore, the Court observed that even if Section 322 were applicable, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail the rule rather than the exception. Given the petitioner’s prolonged detention exceeding one year without trial conclusion, the Court admitted him to bail, emphasizing that penal statutes should be interpreted in favour of the accused in cases of ambiguity.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a driving license convert an offence of rash and negligent driving into a more serious charge?
- Is an offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
- Does an offence punishable only by Diyat fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does prolonged detention without the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused to bail?
- Muhammad Nadeem vs The State, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad N'Azir and 4 otherss vs Ali Sher and 4 others1998 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Muzaffar Abbas vs Kana Division and others1998 SCMR 2433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the determination of seniority for a civil servant in BPS-17. The petitioner sought to have his seniority reckoned from his initial work-charged appointment date of 1-4-1973, rather than the date of his regularized appointment, 1-1-1974, as notified by the government. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner could claim seniority for work-charged service and whether his challenge to the seniority list and regularization date, filed after significant delay, was maintainable. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, holding that the petitioner failed to challenge his seniority position and the regularization date within the stipulated period, rendering his representation belated. The Court further affirmed that service rendered on a work-charged basis, prior to regularization, does not automatically count toward seniority. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot challenge seniority or regularization dates after an inordinate delay, and that work-charged service does not confer seniority rights unless specifically provided for by law.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim seniority for the period served on a work-charged basis prior to regularization?
- Is a representation against a seniority list or regularization date maintainable if filed after a significant delay?
- Does the regularization of a work-charged employee under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 automatically entitle the employee to count the work-charged period for seniority purposes?
- Muhammad Mushtaque vs The Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court1998 PLC 30 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 590 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq and others vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the promotion and seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers (BPS-17) to Executive Engineers (BPS-18). The core legal question revolved around whether civil servants who failed to pass the mandatory departmental examination within four years but passed within five chances, or those who failed to pass within five chances altogether, could claim promotion and seniority over those who cleared the examination within the stipulated timeframe. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly ruled that where the department failed to provide five chances within four years, the condition stood waived as performance became impossible, preventing any disadvantage to those officers. Furthermore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's directions regarding the determination of inter se seniority through provisional seniority lists after promotions, finding the approach just and fair. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be penalized for failing to pass a departmental examination within a stipulated period when the department failed to provide the requisite number of chances?
- Does an officer who passes a departmental examination within five chances have a lesser right to promotion than one who passed within four years under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
- Is the determination of inter se seniority through the issuance of provisional seniority lists by departmental authorities after promotions legally sound?
- Muhammad Mureed and 2 others vs Fazal Abbas and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary1998 PLC (C.S.) 794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the appellant, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge whose services were terminated during probation under section 10(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal questions involved whether the Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction when it initially dismissed the appellant's service appeal, whether a petition under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was competent to challenge that order, and whether the appellant could claim reinstatement on the grounds of discrimination and parity with other officers whose services were also terminated but who were later re-inducted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that matters already adjudicated in earlier rounds of litigation could not be re-agitated, that simple termination of a probationer without stigma does not require a show-cause notice, and that the principle of discrimination cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or demand the restoration of an officer with adverse service records. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether termination of a civil servant's services during probation without stigma requires a show-cause notice?
- Is an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent to challenge an order passed by a Service Tribunal?
- Can the principle of discrimination be invoked to claim reinstatement in service when an employee has adverse entries in their service record?
- Muhammad Munir Hussain. vs Collector (Appeals), Lahore etc_PTCL 1998 CL. 275 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Munaf vs Sixth Civil and Family Judge (East) at Karachi1998 CLC 319 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munaf vs Ixth Civil and Family Judge (East) at Karachi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 490 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Munaf Shaikh vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1608 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mukhtar Sheikh vs Aziz Ahmad Hashmi and 4 others1998 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by a retired Director Public Instructions challenging adverse remarks made against him in a judgment rendered by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether a court or tribunal can pass unwarranted, disparaging remarks against an individual without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was condemned unheard and that the impugned remarks were speculative, unwarranted, and not germane to the controversy. The Court laid down the principle that no adverse or disparaging remarks concerning the personal character or conduct of a person should be made by a judicial or quasi-judicial forum without first giving that person a proper opportunity to explain their position. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and the objectionable remarks were expunged from the Tribunal's judgment.
Questions settled- Can a judicial or quasi-judicial forum pass adverse remarks against an individual without providing an opportunity of being heard?
- Whether unwarranted and speculative observations not germane to the controversy can be expunged from a judgment?
- Does passing disparaging remarks about a person's character without notice violate the principles of natural justice?
- Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and others vs Federal Service1998 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions filed by employees of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal seeking entitlement to the Secretariat Allowance granted to certain Federal Government and Secretariat employees. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were discriminated against by being denied the Secretariat Allowance and whether their claims were maintainable given the abolition of the allowance and subsequent revision of pay scales. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's earlier order had merely remanded the case for consideration without conceding the allowance, that the scheme for the Secretariat Allowance stood abolished in 1989 rendering the 1993 claims hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction, and that allowances are variable and subject to merger upon the introduction of revised pay scales. The key principle laid down is that allowances are not of a permanent character, and the government possesses the right to discontinue or withdraw them, particularly after the enforcement of revised pay scales.
Questions settled- Whether the employees of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are entitled to the 20% Secretariat Allowance granted to Secretariat employees?
- Does the doctrine of past and closed transaction bar claims for an allowance that has already been abolished and merged into revised pay scales?
- Whether allowances of government servants are of a permanent character and protected against withdrawal or discontinuation by the government?
- Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and 56 others vs Federal Service1998 PLC (C.S.) 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed multiple petitions for leave to appeal filed by employees of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking the grant of Secretariat Allowance. The petitioners contended that they were subjected to discriminatory treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as Secretariat Allowance had been granted to employees of other statutory and judicial bodies under administrative control of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal's remand order contained no binding operative direction to grant the allowance. Furthermore, because the scheme for Secretariat Allowance was discontinued in 1989 and subsequently merged into the revised pay scales of 1994, the petitioners' representations made for the first time in 1993 were barred by the doctrine of past and closed transactions. The Court laid down the principle that allowances, unlike basic pay, are variable in nature and not permanently protected under service laws or the Constitution, allowing the government to modify or withdraw them.
Questions settled- Are non-operative observations made by a service tribunal in a remand order binding as a final decision for grant of financial allowances?
- Can employees claim an allowance after its scheme has been discontinued and merged into revised pay scales under the doctrine of past and closed transaction?
- Does the Constitution of Pakistan or service laws protect terms and conditions regarding variable allowances in the same manner as basic pay?
- Muhammad Mujeeb Ahsan vs Secretary, Establishment Division and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for promotion to BPS-18 with effect from 15-6-1991, rather than the actual date of 3-12-1992. The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, had previously challenged his non-promotion in 1991. Although the Tribunal had earlier directed the department to consider him for promotion, the subsequent promotion was granted effective from 3-12-1992, the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in finding his grievance redressed, as he was entitled to promotion from the date his batch-mates were promoted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a civil servant, having been declared entitled to promotion by the Federal Service Tribunal, is legally entitled to ante-dated seniority and promotion effective from the date his juniors and batch-mates were promoted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this issue of entitlement to retroactive promotion and seniority, thereby setting the scope for determining the extent of relief a service tribunal can grant regarding promotion dates.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to ante-dated seniority from the date his juniors and batch-mates were promoted after a Service Tribunal declares him entitled to promotion?
- Does the promotion of a civil servant by a department pursuant to a Tribunal's direction satisfy the grievance if the effective date is later than that of his juniors?
- Muhammad Mubarak vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Advocate vs Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate and 4 others1998 CLC 1810 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Moinuddin vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 646 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-07-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mirza Khan Talpur vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 22 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mir and another vs Abdul Qadir and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 921 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order of the Provincial Government remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence of a convict who had been sentenced under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, whose conviction was upheld up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could lawfully exercise discretionary powers of sentence remission under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in an arbitrary manner, without adhering to prescribed procedures, without consent of the victim or heirs, and in light of the repugnancy of such provisions to the Injunctions of Islam as declared by the Federal Shariat Court. The Balochistan High Court held that discretionary powers under Section 401 must be exercised judiciously and cannot be used arbitrarily or mechanically, especially where statutory provisions like Section 402-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit remission without the consent of the victim or heirs, and where relevant sections have been declared void or restricted pursuant to Islamic injunctions. The impugned remission order was set aside and the convict was directed to undergo the remaining sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Government can exercise its discretionary powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without judicial application of mind?
- Can the Provincial Government remit a sentence under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the consent of the victim or his heirs in view of Section 402-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether provisions relating to the remission of sentences in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam regarding offences affecting the human body?
- Is it mandatory for the Provincial Government to adhere to the prescribed procedure and consider the judicial history of a case, including concurrent convictions upheld by superior courts, before granting a remission?
- Muhammad Mastan and others vs The State1998 MLD 1011 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Masood Bhatti vs Moinud Din Khan1998 CLC 703 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant for alleged rent default. The core legal question was whether the appellant had committed a default in payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, given the statutory timelines and evidence of payment. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred by ignoring material documentary evidence, specifically money orders and court deposit receipts, which proved the rent was tendered in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that under Section 10 of the Ordinance, rent is due by the 10th of the following month, and under Section 15, a tenant is not considered a defaulter unless rent remains unpaid for sixty days after the due date. The Court established that documentary evidence takes precedence over contradictory oral testimony and that the Rent Controller failed to apply these statutory provisions correctly. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the eviction application was dismissed, as no default was established.
Questions settled- What is the statutory grace period for the payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does documentary evidence of rent payment prevail over contradictory oral testimony in rent eviction proceedings?
- When does a tenant legally commit 'default' in the payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Muhammad Mansoor vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 636 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha vs Muhammad Abdur RazzaqK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 186 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha Saleemi vs Administrator, Zila Council/Deputy1998 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha Javed vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1998 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the transfer of civil servants. The dispute arose when two officers, the petitioner and respondent No. 2, competed for a specific posting as Chief Officer, Zila Council, Narowal, utilizing political influence to secure the position. The Tribunal, finding that both parties had improperly exerted undue influence to manipulate the competent authority, set aside the transfer orders and directed the government to decide the posting de novo, suggesting that both officers be excluded from the Narowal posting to discourage such practices. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing he should have been retained in the post. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal's decision to discourage the use of political influence by civil servants was just and appropriate. The Court affirmed that civil servants possess no vested right to be posted at a specific station, and the authority to determine postings rests with the department, provided it acts fairly and justly.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to be posted at a particular station?
- Can a Service Tribunal set aside transfer orders if it finds that civil servants used undue political influence to secure postings?
- Is it appropriate for a Service Tribunal to direct the government to reconsider postings de novo when both parties have engaged in improper conduct?
- Muhammad Mahfooz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 457 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Luqman Hashmi vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleem vs Director, Health Services, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif, ASI, Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura vs Sharifan1998 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court passed in a habeas corpus petition filed for the recovery of a detenu from the unlawful custody of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The High Court, upon reports that the detenu was falsely implicated in a narcotics case through a planted recovery in collusion with a third party, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to register a case and have it investigated by an honest gazetted police officer. The core legal question was whether the High Court could direct an investigation by a gazetted officer in its constitutional jurisdiction and whether certain observations by the High Court would prejudice the subsequent trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was competent to issue such directions to ensure justice and fair play when an investigation is mala fide or without jurisdiction. The Court further ruled that general observations made by the High Court do not prejudice the trial, as the trial court must decide the case independently on the basis of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction direct an investigation of a case by a gazetted police officer?
- Does the High Court have the authority to pass appropriate orders where a police investigation is found to be mala fide or without jurisdiction?
- Do general observations made by the High Court regarding the conduct of a police official prejudice the subsequent trial before the trial court?
- Muhammad Latif vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif and others vs S.H.O. and others1998 MLD 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khurshid Khan vs Asif Raza Mir and another1998 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking the quashment of a revisional order regarding proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of possession of a shop, alleging forcible dispossession, and subsequently obtained possession under the magistrate's interim orders. When the matter progressed, the petitioner contended that the dispute was of a civil nature and ought not to be regulated by criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether a party who invokes the jurisdiction of a magistrate under Section 145, Cr.P.C., and obtains interim possession can subsequently challenge those proceedings and resist the determination of actual possession. The Supreme Court held that a party who takes possession by invoking the magistrate's jurisdiction cannot be permitted to turn around and claim that the magistrate is unable to determine the issue, and that the magistrate's jurisdiction is conditioned upon satisfaction regarding a breach of the peace. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party who invokes the jurisdiction of a magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and obtains interim possession subsequently challenge the validity of those proceedings?
- Is the jurisdiction of a magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 dependent upon satisfaction that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists?
- Whether proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be maintained when the underlying dispute is primarily of a civil nature and civil court decrees or appeals are pending?
- Muhammad Khursheed Khan vs Returning Officer and 4 others1998 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the disqualification of the petitioner from contesting National Assembly elections. The petitioner, a former Assistant Advocate-General, argued that his contractual appointment did not constitute an 'office of profit' in the service of Pakistan, asserting that his role was akin to professional retainership rather than government service. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Advocate-General, held an office of profit connected with the affairs of the Province, thereby triggering disqualification under Article 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s appointment to a permanent post with salary and benefits of BPS-20 constituted an office of profit. The Court clarified that contractual status does not exempt a person from disqualification if the office is connected with the affairs of the Province. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the specific constitutional protection afforded to the Advocate-General under Article 260 cannot be extended by analogy to the Assistant Advocate-General. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the disqualification.
Questions settled- Does a contractual appointment to a permanent government post carrying salary and benefits constitute an 'office of profit' under Article 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the constitutional protection granted to the office of Advocate-General be extended by analogy to the office of Assistant Advocate-General?
- Does the performance of duties on a contractual basis exempt a person from disqualification for holding an office of profit in the service of Pakistan?
- Muhammad Khurram Ijaz vs Punjab University1998 CLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khawar vs Chairman, Pakistan Railway1998 MLD 1579 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Rasool Bibi1998 MLD 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs Maula Bakhsh and anothers1998 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34, P.P.C. The case arose from an incident where the petitioner initially reported to the police that his brother died in a road accident. Later, after surreptitiously removing the body to his native village and bringing it back, the petitioner presented a completely contradictory second version claiming his brother was murdered by the respondents due to a family dispute. The trial court convicted the respondents, but the High Court acquitted them. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondents was perverse or contrary to the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that the petitioner's unexplained somersault in reporting, combined with the delayed statement of a chance witness and the resort to weak res gestae evidence, rendered the prosecution case unreliable.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of an unexplained delayed statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of res gestae evidence when the testimony fails to meet statutory standards?
- Are the standards for interference in an appeal against acquittal different from those in an appeal against conviction?
- What is the impact of a complainant making a complete somersault from an initial report of accidental death to a subsequent allegation of homicidal murder?
- Muhammad Khalid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 808 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, dated 22-9-1997, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for the alleged possession of 25 grams of heroin powder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police witnesses, the failure to associate public witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impropriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the establishment of a strong motive of false implication due to prior enmity. The Peshawar High Court held that the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated, the dual role of the complainant as investigating officer rendered the evidence a weak piece requiring independent corroboration, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in light of established enmity and custodial torture. The court laid down the principles that the prosecution must succeed on its own strength, mandatory procedural safeguards regarding public witnesses must be observed, a complainant police official should not act as the investigating officer, and custodial torture by law enforcement is strictly prohibited and liable to departmental action.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to associate independent public witnesses from the available public during a narcotics recovery violates the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a police official who acts as the complainant in a criminal case also competently act as the Investigating Officer for the same case without requiring independent corroboration?
- What is the effect on the prosecution case when previous enmity and a motive for false implication by the investigating officer are fully established during cross-examination?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of whether the defence plea is proved or found to be false?
- Muhammad Khalid Alim vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1196 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Karim vs Mumtaz Ahmed and another1998 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Kamal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1781 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail criminal appeal was filed by the convict-appellant against his conviction under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-e-Shibh-i-Amd and sentence of Diyat amounting to Rs. 2,40,000, payable in three equal yearly instalments. The appellant was kept in jail for undergoing simple imprisonment due to non-payment of the Diyat amount. The core legal questions pertained to the sustainability of the conviction based on voluntary confessional statements and supporting medical and recovery evidence, as well as the mechanism for releasing a convict on bail during the payment period under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal, but directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing security equivalent to the Diyat amount under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to pay the remaining instalments. The Court also recommended legislative amendment regarding Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to address the indefinite period of simple imprisonment faced by an offender who fails to pay Diyat.
Questions settled- Is a convict sentenced to pay Diyat under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing security equivalent to the Diyat amount?
- Can a conviction for Qatl-e-Shibh-i-Amd be maintained based on a voluntary confession supported by medical evidence and recovery of the crime weapon?
- Does Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 specify a fixed maximum term of imprisonment for non-payment of Diyat?
- Muhammad Kabir and another vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1648 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Kabir And Another vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 489 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Kabir and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jawwad Ali vs Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javaid Ghouri vs Lecturer/Demonstrator, Blood1998 PLC (C.S.) 1437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Junior Clerk, challenged his removal from service following unauthorized absence from duty. After being granted nine days of casual leave, the appellant failed to resume duty and repeatedly applied for leave extensions based on medical certificates from private practitioners. The department initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and eventually removed him from service. The appellant contended that a regular inquiry should have been held and that his medical certificates justified his absence. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules. The Court found that the authorized officer validly dispensed with a regular inquiry as sufficient evidence existed on record. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellant deliberately avoided receiving official correspondence directing him to report for duty or undergo a medical examination. The Court affirmed that the competent authority was entitled to seek a second medical opinion under the Revised Leave Rules, 1981, and that the appellant's failure to ascertain the status of his leave applications demonstrated a lack of diligence. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an authorized officer dispense with a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Is a competent authority entitled to seek a second medical opinion regarding an employee's ailment under the Revised Leave Rules, 1981?
- Does an employee's failure to ascertain the status of leave applications and avoidance of official correspondence justify disciplinary action?
- Muhammad Jamil vs S.H.O. and others1998 P Cr. L J 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil vs Mst. Zohra Begum and others1998 CLC 776 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jameel Qureshi vs DIG, Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Israr vs The State1998 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Israr and 5 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 383 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Israil Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 413 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs S. Zahoorul Hassan and another1998 CLC 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs District Education Officer, Lodhran and 4 others1998 CLC 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and 4 others vs The State1998 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had upheld their conviction and sentences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners were convicted by the trial court for the offence of Zina-bil-Jabar and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and 30 stripes each. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained given the challenges raised regarding the medical and ocular evidence. Specifically, the petitioners argued that the medical evidence, which showed the victim was three months pregnant at the time of the alleged incident, contradicted the prosecution's claim of rape occurring one day prior. Furthermore, the petitioners questioned the natural conduct of the complainant husband and witnesses who allegedly observed the incident without intervening. Finding merit in these contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the conflicting medical evidence and the alleged unnatural conduct of the witnesses.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a pre-existing pregnancy in a victim of alleged rape create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
- Is the failure of a husband and witnesses to intervene during an alleged rape of the wife sufficient to cast doubt on the credibility of ocular evidence?
- Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque vs Mst. Hanifa Begum and 9 others1998 CLC 729 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque vs Government of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal concerns the promotion and seniority of a civil servant who was repeatedly superseded for promotion to BPS-19 due to incomplete Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dossiers. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s supersession in 1983 and 1985 could be converted to 'deferment' following the completion of his record, and whether such claims were barred by limitation or the principle of finality. The Supreme Court held that the 1983 supersession could not be challenged due to the finality of a prior unappealed Tribunal judgment. However, regarding the 1985 supersession, the Court ruled that the administrative decision in 1987 to convert a later supersession to deferment based on the same incomplete record provided a fresh cause of action, rendering the appeal within time. The Court ordered the 1985 supersession to be converted to deferment and for the appellant's case to be reconsidered on merits. The principle established is that a fresh administrative decision regarding an employee's service record may provide a new cause of action, provided the earlier decision has not attained judicial finality.
Questions settled- Does an administrative decision to convert a later supersession into deferment provide a fresh cause of action to challenge an earlier supersession based on the same grounds?
- Can a service appeal be maintained against a supersession decision if a previous challenge to that same decision was dismissed by a tribunal and not appealed?
- Does the late initiation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) by retired officers invalidate the promotion process?
- Muhammad Ishaque Khan vs Khurshid Aziz and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 358 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque alias Baig vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Ishaq alias Baig, who was tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Yousaf by the Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, and sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was that the appellant stabbed the deceased multiple times with a Chhuri due to a suspicion that the deceased was having illicit relations with the appellant's sister, Mst. Nargis. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were justified or whether a lesser penalty was warranted given that the appellant acted under 'Ghairat' (grave and sudden provocation relating to family honour). The High Court held that the appellant indeed acted under 'Ghairat' and altered the conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to five years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the compensation order with a modification regarding default imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that offences committed under the influence of 'Ghairat' or grave and sudden provocation concerning family honour and chastity are to be dealt with leniently, warranting a substantially reduced sentence compared to ordinary premeditated murders.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who commits murder under the influence of 'Ghairat' due to suspected illicit relations involving a family member is entitled to a reduced sentence?
- Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 302(c) in cases involving grave and sudden provocation?
- Whether compensation awarded under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be maintained while reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment?
- Muhammad Ishaq vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District1998 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the trial court's decision dismissing his suit as time-barred. The petitioner originally filed a declaratory suit in a civil court regarding land taken over by the Auqaf Department under a notification issued pursuant to the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. After protracted litigation across civil courts and appellate forums, the matter was treated as an application under section 11 of the Ordinance, which the Additional District Judge and the High Court found to be hopelessly barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not claim the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as he had not prosecuted his case bona fide or with due diligence in the wrong forum, having persisted in pursuing civil suits despite clear statutory bars and exclusive jurisdictions. Furthermore, on merits, the land was validly deemed Waqf property under section 2(d) and Explanation 2 to section 2(e) of the Ordinance, being allotted in lieu of Waqf property abandoned in India. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party litigating in a civil court instead of statutory forums is entitled to exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a notification issued under section 7 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance 1979?
- Is property allotted in Pakistan in lieu of Waqf property left behind in India deemed to be Waqf property under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance 1979?
- Whether an application under section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance 1979 is subject to a period of limitation?
- Muhammad Ishaq vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi and 2 others1998 MLD 272 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq Khan vs Vice-Chanceller, Gomal University, D.I. Khan1998 CLC 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan Khan vs Javed Ahmed Chattari and 20 others1998 CLC 1241 · Election Tribunal · 1998-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition challenged the result of the 1997 National Assembly election for Constituency NA-184 (Karachi West-I), where the respondent was declared the winner. The petitioner alleged various corrupt and illegal practices, including the registration of ineligible voters, the improper change of polling stations, and interference by the local administration and law enforcement agencies to favor the returned candidate. The Election Tribunal addressed whether the petition complied with mandatory procedural requirements, whether the alleged corrupt practices were proven, and whether the irregularities materially affected the election result. The Tribunal held that the burden of proof in election petitions is akin to that of a criminal trial, requiring affirmative proof of allegations to the exclusion of reasonable doubt. Finding that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of corrupt practices with specific evidence, failed to challenge the voter lists prior to the election, and failed to demonstrate that the change of polling stations materially affected the outcome, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, affirming that mere technical irregularities without proof of material impact on the result are insufficient to void an election.
Questions settled- Is the standard of proof for allegations of corrupt and illegal practices in an election petition equivalent to that of a criminal trial?
- Does the failure to challenge voter lists before the commencement of polling preclude a candidate from challenging them in an election petition?
- Is a mere breach of the provisions of the Representation of People Act 1976 sufficient to declare an election void without proof that the result was materially affected?
- Does the requirement under Section 55 of the Representation of People Act 1976 to provide full particulars of corrupt practices require the petitioner to prove those allegations at the initial filing stage?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Ghulam Saeed and others1998 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's pre-emption suits. The petitioner had filed three suits regarding specific land mutations. During the trial, the Civil Judge rejected the plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on an admission made by the petitioner during cross-examination regarding the timing of his demand (Talb-e-Ishhad) under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The trial court reasoned that this admission rendered the suit barred by law and lacking a cause of action, deeming further proceedings futile. The petitioner's subsequent appeals and civil revisions were dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a trial court is legally justified in rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based solely on an admission made during cross-examination, without allowing the plaintiff to conclude their evidence. The Court held that this procedural question requires further examination, thereby granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based solely on an admission made during cross-examination?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to reject a plaint without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to produce their remaining evidence?
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan and others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 MLD 1075 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs State1998 MLD 201 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Mst. Rehmat Bibi through Legal Heirs and others1998 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which remanded a civil matter arising from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question raised was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case for decision instead of deciding the pure point of law itself when no factual controversy was involved. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question and directed that the trial court shall not pass any final order until the disposal of the appeal while remaining free to record evidence. The key principle laid down is that where a pure point of law is involved without factual controversy, appellate or revisional courts must consider whether remanding the matter is appropriate.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a case instead of deciding a point of law itself when no factual controversy is involved?
- Can a trial court record evidence while a petition for leave to appeal against an order of remand is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Iqbal and another vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others vs Mst. Rehmat Bibi through Legal Heirs1998 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a trial court's rejection of a plaint in a pre-emption suit concerning land sold in 1988, filed during a period when no statutory pre-emption law was in force. The core legal question was whether the plaint could be summarily rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on grounds not raised in the written statement, and whether the suit, filed during the interregnum between the repeal of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and the promulgation of the 1990 Ordinance, was governed by Personal Law. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint on grounds not pleaded in the written statement and that issues regarding the maintainability of the suit, the necessity of demands (Talabs), and the heritability of the right of pre-emption were mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence. The Court affirmed the remand order, emphasizing that such matters cannot be decided summarily without framing issues and recording evidence. The principle laid down is that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on grounds not agitated in the written statement, especially when the issues involved are mixed questions of law and fact.
Questions settled- Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds not raised in the written statement?
- Are suits for pre-emption filed during the period between the repeal of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and the promulgation of the 1990 Ordinance governed by Personal Law?
- Should issues concerning the maintainability of a suit, the necessity of demands, and the heritability of the right of pre-emption be decided as preliminary issues or through evidence?
- Does the decision of a District or Additional District Judge have binding precedent value for a trial court?
- Muhammad Inayat and Others vs The State and Others1998 SCMR 1854 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a trial where four accused were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for murder and assault. The High Court subsequently upheld the death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Inayat, who was attributed with firing the fatal gunshot, but acquitted the other three co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the conviction of the appellant could stand on the same set of ocular evidence that was discarded for the co-accused, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused was legally sustainable. The Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured complainant was highly credible and corroborated by medical evidence and motive specifically against the appellant. Regarding the acquitted co-accused, the Court found that their presence was doubtful due to inter-se enmity, and their alleged injuries to the complainant could have resulted from a fall from the motorcycle. The Court affirmed that an acquittal will not be interfered with unless it is artificial, shocking, or ridiculous, and dismissed both appeals.
Questions settled- Can a conviction of a principal accused be sustained on the same ocular evidence that was discarded to acquit his co-accused?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- Does the mere presence of accused persons at the crime scene fix vicarious liability under Section 34 P.P.C. if they share no common intention with the principal accused?
- Muhammad Inayat And Other vs Muhammad Aslam And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inayat and 7 others vs Muhammad Aslam and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 344 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inamul Haque vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 93 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas, Deputy Superintendent, Reliefdepartment Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab S&Ga Department Lahore,EtcK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 64 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs Secrltary to Government, Punjab, S&Ga1998 PLC (C.S.) 36 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas and 4 others vs Muhammad and another1998 MLD 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas Afridi vs Rent Controller and another1998 MLD 429 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iltaf vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ikram Choudiiry and others vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others1998 SCMR 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from contempt of court proceedings initiated against the respondents, including Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. During the hearing, counsel for respondent No.1 raised preliminary suggestions regarding the constitution of a larger bench and requested the Chief Justice to recuse himself due to allegations of scandalisation of the Chief Justice contained in the charge. The Court addressed these points, clarifying that no personal element was involved and that the criticism targeted the institution of the Supreme Court as a whole. While proceedings were ongoing, a violent mob raided the courtroom, shouting slogans and attempting to force entry to take the Chief Justice into custody, creating a chaotic and dangerous situation. Consequently, the Bench was left with no alternative but to abruptly adjourn the proceedings and retire to the chambers. The key principle highlighted is the absolute necessity of maintaining the dignity, independence, and safety of judicial proceedings against unruly external disruptions and mobs.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Justice is required to recuse himself from a contempt case where the alleged criticism is directed against the institution of the Supreme Court as a whole?
- Can contempt of court proceedings be adjourned upon an unruly mob raiding the courtroom and threatening the safety of the judges?
- Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad vs Raja Fahim Afzal and 2 others1998 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of the charge of murder. The prosecution's case rested primarily on alleged extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence, including recoveries of stolen items. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the extra-judicial confessions and granting the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Supreme Court observed that the extra-judicial confessions were introduced belatedly without explanation, rendering them unreliable and lacking independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court held that the scope of interference in an acquittal order is narrow, as a presumption of double innocence attaches to the accused. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, affirming that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should accord substantial weight to acquittal findings unless they are based on misappreciation of evidence or material defects.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in disclosing an extra-judicial confession to the police render the evidence unreliable?
- What is the scope of appellate interference in an order of acquittal?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of recoveries of stolen property under Section 411 P.P.C.?
- Is a confession made to a stranger considered reliable evidence in a criminal trial?
- Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand vs Javed Muhammad and 3 others1998 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an interlocutory order of the Election Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 12-5-1997, which overruled the petitioner's preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of an election petition challenging the petitioner's election as a Member of the Provincial Assembly. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a challenge to an interlocutory order of the Election Tribunal is maintainable at this stage and whether the petitioner would be precluded from raising the preliminary objection in a future appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the main election petition is still pending and an appeal is provided against the final decision, the petitioner is entitled to raise all available pleas, including the preliminary objection to maintainability, in an appeal against the final decision should it go against him. The principle laid down is that interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal can be challenged in the ultimate appeal arising from the final decision of the Tribunal, and objections overruled at an interim stage do not become barred by time for the purpose of a final appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal before the final decision of the petition?
- Can a party raise a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of an election petition in an appeal against the final judgment if such objection was earlier overruled at an interim stage?
- Does an interlocutory ruling by an Election Tribunal barring a preliminary objection become final and unchallengeable in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Muhammad Idrees vs Khan Muhammad and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Idrees vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 5 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by Muhammad Idrees, a General Manager in the Telecommunication Region, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reconsider and decide his representation for antedation of his promotion to BPS-19. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against federal functionaries residing outside the province, and whether matters of antedation and fitness for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution or remain cognizable by the High Court under Article 199. The Court held that it possessed territorial jurisdiction because the adverse administrative orders were communicated to and affected the petitioner within Balochistan, and further held that since promotion matters concerning fitness are excluded from the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction remains intact. The Court laid down the principle that where a civil servant's supersession is converted into deferment and junior officers are promoted, the aggrieved civil servant is entitled to antedation of promotion to maintain seniority parity.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition against federal authorities who passed an adverse order outside the province when such order was communicated to and affected the petitioner within the province?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion to a higher post or grade?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution barred in service matters where the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the grievance?
- When an officer's supersession is converted into deferment and juniors are promoted, is the civil servant entitled to antedation of promotion from the date juniors were promoted?
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1993 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →