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.

• Khawaja Sarfraz Ahmad alias Ganesh and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Awan vs Alim Adil and 19 others1998 CLC 272 · Election Tribunal · 1997-09-25
  election petitionverification of pleadingsmandatory provisionsdismissal of petitionnon-complianceRepresentation of People ActCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with section 55(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 for the dismissal of an election petition due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements regarding the signing and verification of the petition and its annexures. The core legal question before the Election Tribunal was whether the failure to properly verify an election petition and its accompanying documents in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is fatal to the maintainability of the petition under the governing election law. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 55 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 are mandatory in nature, and section 63 leaves the Tribunal with no discretion other than to dismiss an election petition when these provisions are breached. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with the procedural and verification requirements for election petitions is mandatory, and non-compliance directly attracts penal dismissal under section 63 of the Representation of People Act, 1976.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirements of signing and verifying an election petition under section 55 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 are mandatory or directory?
  • Does the Election Tribunal have the discretion to excuse a failure to properly verify an election petition and its annexures?
  • What are the legal consequences under the Representation of People Act, 1976 when a petitioner fails to comply with section 54 or section 55?
  • Does the lack of proper verification in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 render an election petition liable to dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Auto Cars Limtied vs Haji Sharif Khan through his Legal Heirs1998 CLC 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-10Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ahmad Khan and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1192 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28
  murderunlawful assemblyocular testimonyinimical witnessesbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with absconding co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and murdered the deceased while attempting to murder his two sons at a bus stop. The core legal question revolves around the credibility of the ocular testimony given by related and inimical witnesses, the probability of the prosecution's narrative regarding the incident and subsequent arrests, and whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was doubtful, uncorroborated by independent sources, and contradicted by improbable circumstances concerning their escape and arrest. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt, acquitted them of all charges, and dismissed the revision petition. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of interested, related, and inimical witnesses requires strong, independent, and unimpeachable corroboration, and where the prosecution story suffers from inherent improbabilities and tainted investigation, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and inimical eye-witnesses requires strong independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for murder under section 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses is doubtful?
  • Does the unconvincing nature of police arrests and flawed investigation entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether an absolute escape of eye-witnesses unhurt during an indiscriminate firing incident from close range renders their presence improbable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khatau Makanji Spinning. & Weaving Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3017 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
• Khanzada Inamullah Khan vs Mst. Zakia Qutab and 3 others1998 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-25
  civil revisionspecific performanceoral agreementcontingent contractaudio recording admissibilityresumed land repurchasepower of attorneyconsolidation of holdings
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil revision arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, and alternatively specific performance of an oral agreement regarding agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that he paid the government charges to repurchase surrendered land on behalf of the defendants pursuant to an oral agreement that he would receive 1350 Kanals and 12 Marlas in return. While the Trial Court decreed specific performance and granted an injunction, the Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The High Court addressed whether an oral agreement to sell land contingent on the conferment of proprietary rights is lawful, whether the agreement was satisfactorily established, and whether the form of suit was defective. The High Court held that the plaintiff fully proved the oral contract through oral and documentary evidence, unchallenged witness testimony, audio recording, and long-standing possession and improvements. It ruled that an agreement to sell contingent upon the grant of proprietary rights does not violate law or public policy and is specifically enforceable. Consequently, the revision was accepted, the Appellate Court's decision was set aside, and the Trial Court's decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral agreement to sell land prior to the conferment of full proprietary rights is valid and specifically enforceable?
  • Whether an audio-cassette recording is admissible in evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to corroborate an agreement?
  • Whether a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction with an alternative prayer for specific performance is legally maintainable?
  • Can co-owners be bound by an oral agreement and power of attorney executed by one co-owner when their subsequent conduct affirms the transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khanimullah vs Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30
  Service Tribunallimitationcondonation of delaypower of reviewsupersessionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of civil petitions arising from orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the application filed for condonation of delay, and subsequently dismissed a review petition holding that it lacked power to review its own orders under the relevant rules. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was right in holding it had no power to review its orders and rectify the injustice caused by non-consideration of the condonation application. The Supreme Court held that since an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was duly filed, the petitioner was entitled to its consideration before the bar of limitation was invoked. Citing precedent, the Court set aside the Tribunal's orders and remanded the case to decide the question of limitation afresh, while reiterating the need for statutory amendment to vest the Tribunal with review powers to prevent obvious injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the power to review its own orders under Rule 22 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974?
  • Is an appellant entitled to consideration of an application for condonation of delay before an appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation?
  • Can the Supreme Court remand a service appeal to the Tribunal when the Tribunal fails to consider an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Khani Zaman vs Shah Hussain and others1998 PLD Supreme Court 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-09
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadpleadings and evidencecivil revisionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which accepted a civil revision and dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding land purchased by the respondent through multiple mutations. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the High Court set aside those judgments, holding that the pre-emptor failed to properly plead and prove the essential prerequisite of Talb-i-Muwathibat in accordance with law, noting a fatal conflict between the pleadings and the evidence regarding the timing of the talbs. The Supreme Court evaluated the contentions and found that the petitioner omitted crucial details in the plaint, such as the date, place, and witnesses for Talb-i-Muwathibat, and that the evidence adduced contradicted the plaint by stating the talbs occurred on different days rather than the same day. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that no evidence can be led on a question of fact contrary to the pleadings, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor lead evidence on a question of fact that is contrary to what is alleged in the plaint?
  • Is it mandatory to mention the specific details regarding the time and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint for a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a conflict between the pleadings and the evidence regarding the timing of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad vitiate a pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Khandelwal Oil Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3437 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Zafar Abbas Luk, Sub-Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station1998 P Cr. L J 290 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Mst. Robina Maroof Khan1998 SCMR 2333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-25
  giftdelivery of possessionilliterate donorrevisional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencesuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent-wife's suit for possession of a house claimed through a gift made at the time of her nikah by her father-in-law, the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the validity of the gift, delivery of possession, and the appreciation of evidence regarding the execution of the gift deed by an illiterate donor. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered in revision upon finding that the lower appellate court had misread evidence, misinterpreted the document, and misapplied the law, as disinterested witnesses and the scribe duly proved the execution of the gift and the thumb impression. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. The key principle laid down is that a High Court in revisional jurisdiction can interfere with concurrent or appellate factual findings where there is a clear misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere in revision with findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court?
  • Whether a gift deed executed by an illiterate person is invalid solely because it was not read out to him?
  • Is delivery of possession established when the donee resides in the gifted house with her husband?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Medical Store vs Mst. Musarrat1998 SCMR 2114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-06
  evictionlandlord-tenant disputeSindh Rented Premises Ordinancepersonal usestatutory interpretationwidow landladytenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against eviction orders passed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The respondent, a widow landlady, sought eviction of two tenants from amalgamated commercial premises for personal use under Section 14. The tenants challenged the eviction, arguing that the landlady was already in possession of a building in the same locality, thereby triggering the disqualification under Section 14(2), and that she could not simultaneously seek eviction from multiple premises. The Supreme Court held that the landlady's occupation of a small, improvised passage did not constitute a building under Section 2(a) of the Ordinance, thus failing to trigger the statutory bar. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the disqualification under Section 14(2) applies only when the landlord occupies a building of the same nature or character as the premises sought. Finally, the Court ruled that Section 14 is an enabling provision to be liberally construed, permitting the Controller to equitably apportion eviction claims across multiple tenancies. The petitions were dismissed, allowing the tenants one year to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's occupation of a small, improvised passage constitute a building under Section 2(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a landlord disqualified from seeking eviction of commercial premises under Section 14(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if they occupy residential premises?
  • Can a landlord simultaneously seek eviction from multiple premises under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Khamiso vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1724 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Khalique Ahmad vs Tahir Saeed and another1998 CLC 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25
  specific performanceOrder II Rule 2constructive res judicatawithdrawal of suitcivil revisionperpetual injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the applicability of Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to a subsequent suit for specific performance filed after the withdrawal of an earlier suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent's second suit was barred because the relief of specific performance should have been claimed in the initial suit. The Court held that the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, are not attracted when the suits are contemporaneous or when the second suit is filed before the earlier suit is decided on merits. The Court affirmed that the principle of constructive res judicata applies to subsequent suits, not to suits filed simultaneously or where the first suit is withdrawn before adjudication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the institution of a second suit for specific performance, following the withdrawal of an earlier injunction suit, does not constitute vexing the defendant twice for the same cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of an earlier suit for permanent injunction bar a subsequent suit for specific performance under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to contemporaneous suits?
  • Is a second suit barred under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if the first suit was withdrawn before any adjudication on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Raza Khan vs Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited1998 SCMR 2092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-29
  sindh rented premises ordinancegovernment landleasehold rightsownership definitionrent controllandlord and tenantejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside an order of ejectment passed against the respondent-tenant on the ground that the premises, being located on land owned by the Federal Government, fell outside the scope of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 pursuant to section 3(1). The core legal question was whether the exemption under section 3(1) of the Ordinance—excluding premises owned or requisitioned by the Federal or Provincial Government—applies to a dispute between a private landlord who holds the land on a lease from the government and their tenant. The Supreme Court held that the exemption in section 3(1) protects government-owned property only in disputes involving the government's own interests as a lessor, and does not apply to a private landlord-tenant dispute merely because the underlying land is leased from the government. The Court laid down the principle that a lessee of government land qualifies as an 'owner' and 'landlord' vis-a-vis their tenant under the Ordinance, rendering the statute fully applicable to such private tenancies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exemption under section 3(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply to premises where the landlord holds the land on a lease from the Federal Government?
  • Can a lessee of government land be considered an 'owner' or 'landlord' for the purposes of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a private rent dispute between a landlord and tenant is excluded from the operation of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance merely because the underlying property vests in the Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Afzal and anothers1998 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-04
  bail after convictionsuspension of sentenceleave to appealmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court suspending the sentence and granting bail to respondent No. 1, who had been convicted under section 302 and section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment respectively by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of suspending a sentence and granting bail after conviction where the trial court noted weaknesses in the motive, lack of weapon recovery, and the criminal background of the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly suspended the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to suspend sentences and grant bail post-conviction based on the specific circumstances and apparent evidentiary weaknesses highlighted by the trial court, without delving deep into the merits at the leave stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in suspending a sentence and granting bail after conviction based on weaknesses in the prosecution's motive and lack of weapon recovery?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the suspension of a sentence by the High Court under the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order suspending the sentence of a convicted person.
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman and another vs Haji Abdul Karim and 2 others1998 CLC 680 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Khalifa Abdul Ghani vs Amir Hamza and 7 others1998 CLC 1851 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-05-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Waheed vs The Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication1998 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-16
  service lawlimitation perioddepartmental appealfitness for promotioncondonation of delaycivil servanttime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civil servant, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had rejected his claim for ante-dated promotion as time-barred. The appellant had initially been promoted to Senior Accounts Clerk (B-11) in 1991 but sought promotion effective from 1988 based on departmental policy. His first representation was rejected in 1992. He filed a second departmental appeal in 1994, which was also rejected, and subsequently approached the Tribunal in 1995. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred, specifically whether a second departmental representation could extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred. The Court affirmed that where a matter relates to fitness for promotion, statutory provisions restrict the right to appeal or review. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the mere repetition of representations or appeals to a department does not extend the statutory period of limitation, which is tied to the original cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a second departmental representation extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Is an appeal or review competent against an order determining the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Can a civil servant enlarge the period of limitation by repeatedly submitting representations to the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1503 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-26
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsminor penaltyproperty tax assessmentefficiency and discipline rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave of the Court against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against the penalty of withholding his one increment for one year. The appellant, an Excise and Taxation Officer, had reduced the annual assessment of certain premises and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, resulting in the minor penalty. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was justified in reducing the assessment and whether the punishment imposed was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the Court cannot examine whether the assessment made by the appellant was warranted under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, as such questions fall within the domain of forums provided under the Act, and the appellant failed to point out any legal infirmity in the disciplinary action taken against him. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can examine the correctness of a property tax assessment made by a civil servant in a service appeal arising from disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether the penalty of withholding an increment imposed under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 was justifiable in the circumstances?
  • Whether an officer reducing a property tax assessment against the view of subordinates must record cogent reasons for the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Sga&I Department, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1499 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Khalid Shah alias Thoain Shah vs The State1998 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-23
  criminal appealcommon intentionidentification paradebenefit of doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the evidence on record, specifically regarding the appellant's identification and participation, was sufficient to sustain a conviction under the principle of common intention, particularly when no fatal injury was attributed to him. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not named in the First Information Report, no identification parade was conducted despite the eye-witness's lack of prior acquaintance with the appellant, and no motive was established linking the appellant to the crime or the absconding co-accused. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court laid down the principle that in cases where an accused is not named or only a nickname is provided, holding an identification parade is essential to exclude false implication, and the prosecution must establish a community of interest to invoke common intention.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade essential when an accused is not named in the First Information Report?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained without establishing a community of interest between the accused and co-accused?
  • Does the absence of a motive linking an accused to the crime create a reasonable doubt regarding their participation?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sarwar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rashid Shahbaz vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-29
  service tribunalcadre mergerseniority listcivil servantregularizationinformation grouppakistan national centre
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal concerning the merger and seniority of officers of the Pakistan National Centre within the Information Group. The core legal questions involve whether the employees of the Pakistan National Centre were validly and legally merged into the Information Group through administrative office memoranda, whether tentative seniority lists create enforceable legal rights, and the competence of the Prime Minister's directive separating the cadres. The Supreme Court held that the purported merger lacked legislative backing, statutory sanction, or valid regularization under the applicable recruitment rules, and that tentative seniority lists do not confer any vested rights or cause of action. The Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Prime Minister's directive recognizing the Pakistan National Centre as a separate, dying cadre. The key legal principles laid down are that administrative instructions without statutory authority cannot effect a cadre merger, and tentative seniority lists create no enforceable legal rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative office memoranda without statutory backing effect a valid merger of distinct service cadres?
  • Does a tentative seniority list create any enforceable legal rights or provide a valid cause of action for a civil servant?
  • Whether employees of an attached department automatically become members of a service group without formal regularization under recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nazir Khan vs Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 5 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 643 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nawaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18
  Control of Narcotic SubstancesAssistant Sub-InspectorJurisdictionCoram non judiceIllegal search and seizureSpecial oathAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Okara, convicting the appellant under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance VI of 1995 and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.-I.) intercepted the appellant, searched him, and recovered 12 grams of heroin. The core legal questions pertained to the competence and jurisdiction of an A.S.-I. to detain, search, seize narcotics, and arrest an accused under Sections 21 and 22 of the Ordinance, and whether a criminal trial could be determined based on a special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The High Court held that statutory provisions required an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to conduct such seizure and arrest. Consequently, the search, arrest, and subsequent proceedings conducted by the A.S.-I. lacked substantive jurisdiction and were coram non judice. The Court also held that Article 163 explicitly excludes criminal cases from being decided on special oath. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police have the statutory authority and jurisdiction to detain, search, seize narcotics from, or arrest an accused under Sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance VI of 1995?
  • What is the legal effect of a search, seizure, and arrest conducted by a police officer who lacks the prescribed statutory rank under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance VI of 1995?
  • Can a criminal prosecution be decided on the basis of a special oath pursuant to Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nadeem vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Collector, Dera Ismail1998 PLC (C.S.) 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31
  civil service appointmentmedical retirementlocus standiN.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Rulesappointment of children of deceased civil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioner, Khalid Nadeem, claiming a right to be appointed as a Porter (Qulli) in the C & W Department, Government of N.-W.F.P., following the retirement of his uncle, Allah Diwaya, on medical grounds. The petitioner challenged the appointment of the respondent, Muhammad Mushtaq, to the vacancy created by his uncle's retirement. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all dismissed the petitioner's claim, finding that no legal basis existed for his appointment. The Supreme Court examined Rule 10(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which permits the appointment of a child of a civil servant only if the servant dies during service. The Court held that since the petitioner was not the child of the retired employee and the employee had retired on medical grounds rather than dying in service, the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the post. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the respondent's appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the policy allowing the appointment of children of a deceased civil servant apply to a civil servant who retires on medical grounds?
  • Does a person who has no legal claim to a government post have the locus standi to challenge the appointment of another person to that post?
  • Is the appointment of a child of a civil servant under Rule 10(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 applicable to a nephew of a retired civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 375 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Wattoo vs Government of Punjab and others1998 SCMR 2280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-27
  terms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of service tribunalconstitutional petitionarticle 212 barforeign deputationintra-court appeallimitation condonationfitness to hold post
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside a Single Judge's order that had accepted the petitioner's writ petition regarding a foreign deputation posting. The petitioner, a Joint Director in the Labour and Manpower Department, challenged an order of the Prime Minister allocating certain Community Welfare Attache posts outside Punjab's quota. The Supreme Court addressed issues of limitation, the maintainability of Intra-Court Appeals, the ouster of High Court jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to terms and conditions of civil servants, and the scope of section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court held that a civil servant's challenge relating to service terms and conditions, including deputation and quota allocations, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, thereby completely ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, notwithstanding allegations of mala fides or void orders. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the matter did not attract the exception under section 4(1)(b) regarding fitness, and declined to compel the government through a writ to send a civil servant abroad on deputation. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in service matters even when the impugned departmental order is alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice?
  • Does a challenge to the allocation of deputation posts or quotas affecting a civil servant's terms and conditions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether an order concerning the refusal of a foreign deputation posting attracts the exception regarding fitness under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ or direction compelling the Government to send a civil servant on deputation or posting abroad?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Sheikh Muhammad Tareef and 3 others1998 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12
  maintenance allowancecourt-fee deficiencypauper applicationwrit petitionleave to appealfamily court decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by the respondents, which was decreed by the Family Court. The petitioner appealed this decree but failed to pay the required court-fee. Despite being directed to make up the deficiency, the petitioner failed to comply and subsequently filed an application to sue as a pauper, which was dismissed for lack of sufficient grounds. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with court-fee requirements. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a pauper, was entitled to exemption from court-fee payment and relief from maintenance obligations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to provide material evidence to substantiate his claim of pauperism. The Court affirmed that a mere bald assertion of being a student or unable to pay is insufficient to claim relief, emphasizing that the legal duty to provide maintenance remains paramount.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere assertion of being a student or unable to pay constitute sufficient grounds to be declared a pauper for the purpose of court-fee exemption?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with a court order to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to relief from maintenance obligations based solely on an unproven claim of pauperism?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs (Mst.) Sultana BanoK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 765 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Ahmad vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and anothers1998 SCMR 2081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-25
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksdepartmental appealnatural justiceFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the period of 10-2-1994 to 22-12-1994. The petitioner challenged the departmental dismissal of his appeal, arguing it was done without assigning reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal's decision was flawed because it relied on extraneous considerations, specifically a previous reversion from his post, and failed to properly address the disputed period of the A.C.R. The Supreme Court considered whether the failure to provide reasons in a departmental appeal and the Tribunal's reliance on irrelevant factors rendered the judgment unsustainable. Finding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required further consideration, the Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the procedural fairness of departmental appellate decisions and the scope of the Tribunal's review regarding the basis of adverse A.C.R. entries.

  Questions settled

  • Is a departmental authority required to assign reasons when dismissing an appeal against adverse A.C.R. remarks?
  • Can a Service Tribunal base its decision on extraneous factors such as a previous, unchallenged reversion of a civil servant?
  • Does the failure to provide reasons for a departmental decision constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Ahmad vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-25
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksdepartmental appealprinciples of natural justicereasoned orderservice appealFederal Service Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the period between February 1994 and December 1994. The petitioner challenged the departmental authority's dismissal of his appeal without providing reasons, arguing this violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal's decision was influenced by extraneous considerations, specifically his prior reversion from the post of Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, which the Tribunal incorrectly assumed went unchallenged. The Supreme Court identified that the core legal questions involved the necessity of providing reasons for administrative decisions and the propriety of the Tribunal's reliance on extraneous factors in its adjudication. Finding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required deeper consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The judgment underscores the requirement for administrative authorities to provide reasoned orders and the necessity for judicial tribunals to base their findings strictly on relevant facts rather than extraneous circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is a departmental authority required to provide reasons when dismissing an appeal against adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  • Can a Service Tribunal rely on extraneous considerations, such as an unchallenged reversion, when adjudicating an appeal regarding adverse A.C.R. remarks?
  • Does the failure to provide reasons for an administrative decision violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javaid vs Mst. Tahira Yasmeen and 2 others1998 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-09Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javaid Khalid vs Ijaz Ahmed and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-30
  service mattertransfer and postingwrit jurisdictionjurisdictional barcivil servantService Tribunalinterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which suspended a transfer order of a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition and grant interim relief regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given that such matters pertain to the terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to consider the jurisdictional bar imposed by the Constitution. The Court set aside the impugned interim order and remanded the matter to the High Court with a specific direction to determine the question of its own jurisdiction before granting any further interim relief. The key principle laid down is that disputes regarding the transfer and posting of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in such service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Must the High Court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before granting interim relief in service matters?
  • Do disputes regarding the transfer of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid alias Khala vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 606 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Khalid Abbas Khan Niazi vs Member, Income Tax (Judicial), Central1998 PTD 2767 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Khajanchi Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 967 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Umar Farooq and 2 otherss vs Province of the Punjab1998 CLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Kh. Abdul Qayyum and others vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1998 PLC (C.S.) 1321 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-01-07Read full judgment →
• Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3649 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Kerala State Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3008 · Kerala High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Kerala Liquor Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2784 · Kerala High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax-S1998 PTD 361 · Kerala High Court · 1996-02-05Read full judgment →
• Kenneth and anothers vs The State1998 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-25
  narcoticsheroin recoverycommon intentionjoint possessionleave to appealprohibition order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence and joint liability in the recovery of a large quantity of contraband drugs from co-accused individuals. The Supreme Court held that where multiple accused travel together, reside in the same hotel room, and are arrested red-handed while jointly loading contraband into a vehicle, the prosecution successfully establishes common intention and possession. The Court further held that a co-accused's confession taking sole responsibility is a mere device to shield accomplices when overwhelming circumstantial and ocular evidence proves joint participation. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint possession of contraband can be inferred when co-accused travel, reside, and are arrested together?
  • Does a confession by one co-accused absolve other jointly arrested individuals from criminal liability?
  • Is the burden on accused persons to prove innocence when caught red-handed transporting a large quantity of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 331 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Kausar Mahboob vs The State1998 MLD 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
• Kausar Irshad vs The State1998 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-18
  heroin recoveryprohibition orderC.I.A. investigationrunning vehicle searchsection 103 Cr.P.C.section 156 Cr.P.C.leave to appealnarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which upheld his conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, while reducing the fine and setting aside his conviction under Article 4, following the recovery of 28 kilograms of heroin from a Suzuki van driven by him. The core legal questions involved whether the investigation conducted by C.I.A. personnel vitiated the trial and whether the non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a running vehicle rendered the recovery illegal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, proceedings by a police officer cannot be called in question on the ground of lack of empowerment unless serious prejudice is shown, and that section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to the search of a running vehicle. The key principles laid down are that procedural irregularities by specialized police branches like the C.I.A. do not vitiate a trial absent a miscarriage of justice, and the statutory requirement for independent witnesses during searches does not extend to running vehicles.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by C.I.A. personnel in a narcotic case vitiate the trial?
  • Do the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the search of a running vehicle?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in recovery witnesses' statements are sufficient to negate the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaukab Maqbool Ahmad vs Executive Officer Cantonment Board, MultanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Katbar and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-06
  pre-arrest bailfire-arm injuryprohibitory clausevicarious liabilitydelay in FIRmala fideattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants, Katbar and Ghulam Shabbir, sought pre-arrest bail after the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dismissed their initial applications. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with others, arrived in a car due to a matrimonial dispute, and Ghulam Shabbir fired a pistol at the victim, Haji Arbab, causing fire-arm injuries, while Katbar shared a common intention. The core legal questions involved whether delay in lodging the F.I.R., simple nature of injuries, or lack of direct weapon attribution warranted pre-arrest bail, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that mere delay or simplicity of injury caused by a fire-arm does not justify pre-arrest bail, especially when vicarious liability under section 34 is prima facie established and the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of section 324. Furthermore, the court emphasized that pre-arrest bail requires proof of mala fide or clear innocence, neither of which was established, and granting it would stifle police investigation. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does delay in lodging the F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether fire-arm injuries categorized as simple prevent the application of the prohibitory clause in an offense of attempted murder?
  • Can an accused sharing a common intention and escaping with the principal offender be granted pre-arrest bail on the ground of lack of direct weapon attribution?
  • What are the primary considerations for granting pre-arrest bail regarding mala fide involvement and innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs Commissioner of Income Tax1998 PTD 1484 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-09-04Read full judgment →
• Karim Charania vs Nabi Bux Bhurgari1998 MLD 812 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Controller Examination, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and another1998 MLD 21 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and 16 others vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur1998 MLD 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-10Read full judgment →
• Kareem Bux vs P.O. Sindh and others1998 CLC 27 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-21
  civil revisionplenary jurisdictioncoram non judiceappellate court procedurerehabilitation lawsadministrative jurisdictiondecree precision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenged an appellate judgment that modified a trial court's decree concerning the validity of an administrative order issued by an Assistant Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether an appellate court must record findings issue-wise, similar to a trial court, and whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of an administrative order that is allegedly coram non judice. The High Court held that the appellate court is not mandatorily required to record findings issue-wise, provided it addresses all material points raised. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court affirmed that civil courts, as courts of plenary jurisdiction, are empowered to entertain challenges against administrative or quasi-judicial orders that are coram non judice or passed without jurisdiction. It was further held that after the repeal of evacuee laws, revenue authorities lacked the jurisdiction to determine the legality of allotments made under those laws. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that decrees must be precise and conform to the requirements of Order XX, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court mandatorily required to record findings issue-wise in the same manner as a trial court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Do civil courts have jurisdiction to challenge an administrative order that is coram non judice or passed without jurisdiction?
  • Does an Assistant Commissioner have jurisdiction to determine the legality of an allotment made under the repealed rehabilitation laws?
  • Must a decree prepared by a court be precise and conform to the requirements of Order XX, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain vs Water and Power Development Authority through Member (Power), WAPDA, Lahore and anothers1998 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-12
  disciplinary proceedingsmisconductcorruptionservice tribunalburden of proofWAPDA employeesreversion in rank
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Budget and Accounts Officer, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his reversion in rank following disciplinary proceedings. The appellant faced charges of misconduct and corruption, specifically demanding commissions from contractors. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him of misconduct but found him guilty of corruption. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to independently assess the facts, that he was prejudiced by the non-supply of inquiry documents, and that the charge of corruption was legally defective for lacking an allegation of 'reputation of being corrupt.' The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal is not required to take suo motu notice of procedural grievances not specifically raised by the appellant. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Rule 3(c) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1978, the phrases 'is corrupt' and 'may reasonably be considered corrupt' are disjunctive. Consequently, direct evidence of corruption suffices for disciplinary action, and a specific finding regarding a reputation for corruption is not a prerequisite where direct evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have a duty to take suo motu notice of procedural defects not raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal?
  • Are the phrases 'is corrupt' and 'may reasonably be considered corrupt' in Rule 3(c) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1978 to be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
  • Is direct evidence of corruption sufficient to sustain a disciplinary charge, or must an employee also be proven to have a reputation of being corrupt?
  • Is the definition of 'misconduct' in the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1978 exhaustive?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain vs Water and Power Development Authority through Member (Power), WAPDA, Lahore and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-12
  disciplinary proceedingsWAPDA employeesmisconductcorruptionservice tribunalburden of proofstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Budget and Accounts Officer, challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal against a disciplinary order reverting him in rank. The disciplinary action stemmed from charges of exerting departmental influence and demanding commissions from contractors. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the inquiry officer, concluding the charges were proven and the penalty was justified. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to independently evaluate the facts, that necessary documents were withheld, and that the corruption charge was defective for lacking allegations of a 'reputation of being corrupt.' The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to raise specific grievances regarding document non-supply before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal is not obligated to take suo motu notice of defects not pointed out by the appellant. The Court clarified that under Rule 3(c) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, the criteria 'is corrupt' and 'may reasonably be considered corrupt' are disjunctive, meaning direct evidence of corruption is sufficient for disciplinary action without needing to prove a reputation of corruption.

  Questions settled

  • Are the phrases 'is corrupt' and 'may reasonably be considered corrupt' in Rule 3(c) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, to be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
  • Can a disciplinary authority impose penalties for corruption based on direct evidence without establishing a reputation of being corrupt?
  • Is the definition of 'misconduct' in the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, exhaustive?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have a duty to take suo motu notice of procedural defects in departmental inquiries not raised by the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain Shah vs The District Magistrate, Attock1998 P Cr. L J 89 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1779 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Karachi Transport Corporation Workers' Union vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh Secretariat No,1, Karachi and 3 others1998 CLC 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Karachi Transport Corporation through Secretary and others vs Mukhtar Begum and others1998 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-19
  vicarious liabilityfatal accidentsemployer liabilitynegligent drivingcivil compensationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals filed by the Karachi Transport Corporation against a High Court judgment that held the Corporation jointly and severally liable for damages arising from a fatal bus accident. The core legal question was whether an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an employee who allegedly took a company vehicle out without explicit authorization. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the Corporation failed to rebut the legal presumption that the vehicle, being owned by the Corporation and driven by its employee, was being operated on its behalf. The Court affirmed that even if internal instructions regarding vehicle usage were violated, the employer remains liable for the negligent performance of duties by its staff. The judgment reinforces the principle of vicarious liability, holding that an employer cannot evade responsibility for damages caused by its vehicle and employees simply by claiming unauthorized use, particularly when the employer fails to produce evidence—such as gate records or testimony from gatekeepers—to disprove the presumption of authorized operation.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employer vicariously liable for the negligent driving of an employee if the vehicle was taken out without explicit authorization?
  • Does a legal presumption arise that a vehicle owned by a corporation and driven by its employee is being operated on the corporation's behalf?
  • Can an employer escape liability for a fatal accident by claiming internal instructions regarding vehicle usage were violated by the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority through Deputy Director, Karachi vs Syed Lal Hussain Shah1998 PLC 143 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Kamil Khan and another vs Government of Sindh through Deputy1998 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-24
  constitutional petitionnatural justiceaudi alteram partemrecord of rightsmutationjudicial reviewvoid ab initioalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner, Khipro, which cancelled mutation entries in the record of rights regarding their agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the Assistant Commissioner acted without jurisdiction by cancelling entries after a seven-year delay without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and whether the High Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction despite the availability of alternate remedies. The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner’s order was void ab initio and of no legal effect. It determined that the authority acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to serve notice and exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning a significant delay without valid reasoning. The Court established that quasi-judicial authorities must act fairly and within their legal sphere, and orders suffering from inherent infirmities or lack of jurisdiction are not immune from judicial review. Furthermore, the principle of audi alteram partem is read into statutes, and constitutional petitions are maintainable when an impugned action is patently illegal, rendering alternate remedies inadequate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to proceedings under the Land Revenue Act even if not explicitly provided?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order where the impugned action is patently illegal and void ab initio?
  • Is an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority immune from judicial review simply because an alternate remedy of appeal exists?
  • Does an Assistant Commissioner have the authority to condone a significant delay in an appeal without providing cogent reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalu and 4 others vs The State and another1998 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26
  private complaintpreliminary inquirySection 202 Cr.P.C.criminal revisionissuance of processprima facie caseright of audience
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioners as accused persons in a private complaint case for murder, despite a prior police investigation having found them innocent. The core legal question was whether an accused person has a right to participate in, or have their defense—specifically police findings of innocence—considered during a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. The Court established that a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 is not a trial; consequently, the accused has no right of audience or participation at this stage. The inquiry's sole purpose is to determine if a prima facie case exists based on the complainant's evidence. It is not mandatory for the Inquiry Magistrate to examine the Investigating Officer or consider police case diaries during this preliminary stage, as the accused's defense is reserved for the actual trial. The Magistrate must exercise independent judgment rather than relying solely on police reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person have a right to participate in a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Magistrate required to examine the Investigating Officer or consider police case diaries during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court summon an accused person in a private complaint even if the police investigation previously found them innocent?
  • Is the report of an Inquiry Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 binding upon the court taking cognizance of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kadirmind- vs The State and anothers1998 SCMR 2542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-20
  interim custodysuperdaricriminal revisionvehicle ownership disputesecurity depositcivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the interim custody of a mini-bus, which was the subject of an application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had initially been granted custody by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, but the High Court reversed this decision in criminal revision, awarding custody to the respondent, Ghulam Hyder, subject to a cash security deposit of Rs. 250,000. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's order, noting that the vehicle was recovered from the respondent's driver and that the respondent's name appeared in the Excise and Taxation records. The Court held that allegations regarding fraudulent mutation of vehicle records must be adjudicated by a competent civil court. Finding no error in the High Court's decision to grant custody to the respondent, the Supreme Court affirmed the order but modified the security requirements. It directed the respondent to furnish additional security of Rs. 150,000, bringing the total security to Rs. 400,000, to abide by the final determination of the civil court, thereby balancing the interests of the parties pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a vehicle from a specific individual's driver constitute a relevant factor in determining interim custody under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court order the modification of security conditions for vehicle custody pending the final determination of ownership by a civil court?
  • Should allegations of fraudulent mutation of vehicle records be determined in criminal proceedings or by a competent civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabeer vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07
  post-arrest bailabetmentconspiracyextra-judicial confessionfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Kabeer, who was charged under Sections 364, 302, 201, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the abduction and murder of his brother, Sher Muhammad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner conspired with and abetted his co-accused, Muhammad Ramzan, who purportedly committed the murder by inflicting fatal blows and disposing of the body in a canal. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner, whose alleged role was limited to conspiracy and abetment, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the evidence of extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was weak. Furthermore, relying on established precedents, the Court held that an accused whose involvement is limited to abetment of murder is entitled to bail, as the case against him warrants further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond, thereby affirming the principle that allegations of abetment in capital offences often necessitate further judicial scrutiny before trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person whose alleged role is limited to conspiracy and abetment of murder entitled to bail?
  • Does the reliance on extra-judicial confession as the primary evidence against an accused render a case one of further inquiry?
  • Can an accused charged with abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be granted bail pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• K.P.W. Factors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Shafqat Javed Cheema and others1998 CLC 110 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-02
  closure of evidenceadjournmentrevision petitionremand ordercivil proceduretrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for the recovery of rent where the trial court closed the defendants' evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subsequently decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the Additional District Judge remanded the case, prompting the plaintiff to file this revision petition. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. to close the defendants' evidence. The High Court held that the trial court erred in its application of the law. The ratio established is that for Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. to be applicable, the adjourned date of hearing must have been fixed at the request or instance of the party in default. Since the date in question was not fixed at the defendants' request, the trial court's action was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court upheld the remand order, dismissing the revision petition while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within a limited timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a trial court invoke Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close a party's evidence?
  • Is an order closing evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 valid if the adjourned date was not fixed at the request of the defaulting party?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to remand a case if the trial court improperly closed the evidence of a party?
  Read full judgment →
• K.M. Sharma vs Income-Tax Officer and others1998 PTD 493 · Delhi High Court · 1996-05-24Read full judgment →
• K.L. Jaiswal vs Wealth Tax Officer and another1998 PTD 1092 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1993-11-25Read full judgment →
• K. Sreedharan & Co. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1998 PTD 2845 · Kerala High Court · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs The State1998 MLD 992 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-31Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and anothers1998 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-26
  disciplinary proceedingspenalty of censureFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealprocedural fairnessmisplacement of official fileservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Director in the National Training Bureau, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld a penalty of censure imposed upon him. The disciplinary proceedings originated from the misplacement of an official file regarding the procurement of a plain paper copier, leading to charges of procedural non-compliance, lack of coordination, and irresponsible conduct. Following an inquiry and a show-cause notice, the competent authority imposed the minor penalty of censure. The petitioner challenged this before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with the law, specifically examining whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, the Court addressed a procedural defect in the petition's title, ruling that naming the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a respondent is legally impermissible and ordering the removal of that reference from the case title.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible to name the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a respondent in a petition before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses during a disciplinary inquiry vitiate the resulting penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-26
  disciplinary proceedingspenalty of censuremisplacement of official fileservice lawinquiry procedureleave to appealFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Director in the National Trading Bureau, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld a penalty of censure imposed upon him. The disciplinary proceedings originated from the misplacement of a file concerning the procurement of a plain paper copier, for which the petitioner and another officer were held responsible due to a failure to follow established government procedures for file handling, lack of coordination, and an irresponsible attitude. Following an inquiry and a show-cause notice, the competent authority imposed the minor penalty of censure, which the Tribunal subsequently affirmed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the law and whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, the Court directed the removal of the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a respondent in the title of the petition, noting that such impleadment is not permissible under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is it permissible to implead the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a respondent in a service matter petition?
  • Does the failure to follow established government procedures for file handling constitute sufficient grounds for a penalty of censure?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Prime Minister of Pakistan and anothers1998 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13
  service tribunalminor penaltycensuremisplacement of filesurmises and conjecturesbenefit of doubtdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal against the imposition of the minor penalty of censure. The appellant, an Assistant Director in the National Training Bureau, was charged with the misplacement of a file relating to the procurement of a plain paper copier and the failure to observe the laid-down system for file movement. Following an inquiry, the minor penalty of censure was imposed, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the inquiry was held in accordance with law and whether sufficient evidence existed to prove the charges. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry findings were based on surmises and conjectures, as the Inquiry Officer was uncertain regarding the custody of the file, and that the responsibility for maintaining the file rested with the Administrative Officer under the applicable rules rather than the appellant. The Court laid down the principle that findings of misconduct cannot be sustained when based on mere speculation and unverified oral statements of a co-accused in the absence of prescribed record-keeping entries, and that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused even in disciplinary proceedings for minor penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a penalty of censure be sustained when the inquiry report's findings regarding the custody of a misplaced file are based on surmises and conjectures?
  • Whether an employee can be held responsible for the misplacement of a file when the statutory responsibility for maintaining file movement records lies with another officer?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to a civil servant in disciplinary proceedings when no documentary evidence or receipt of file delivery is produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Prime Minister of Pakistan and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13
  disciplinary proceedingsminor penaltycensuremisplacement of fileservice lawburden of proofsurmises and conjecturesSecretariat Instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the imposition of a minor penalty of censure against the appellant, an Assistant Director, for the alleged misplacement of an official file. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, whether the appellant was afforded a proper opportunity to defend himself, and whether the finding of guilt was based on sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry report’s conclusion was based on mere surmises and conjectures, specifically noting the Inquiry Officer’s uncertainty regarding the appellant's custody of the file. Furthermore, the Court found that the Department failed to produce any receipt proving the file's delivery to the appellant, and that the responsibility for maintaining file records rested with the Administrative Officer under the applicable Secretariat Instructions. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty and the Tribunal’s judgment, establishing the principle that disciplinary findings cannot be sustained on speculative evidence and that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused in such proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary penalty be sustained when the inquiry finding is based on surmises and conjectures?
  • Does the failure to produce a receipt for a file transfer exonerate an official accused of misplacing said file?
  • Is an official responsible for the misplacement of a file if the duty to maintain records lies with another officer under the Secretariat Instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Joseph J. Chakola vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 3547 · Kerala High Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
• Joint Admission Committee through Chairman/ Principal, Khyber Medical1998 SCMR 1230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-29
  medical college admissionequivalence certificateI.B.C.C.administrative competenceprovisional admissionadmission criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a series of civil petitions concerning the admission process for medical colleges in Pakistan. The core legal question presented before the Supreme Court was whether the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen (I.B.C.C.) possessed the legal competence to issue equivalence certificates that converted student grades into marks for the purpose of medical college admissions, or whether the admission criteria and formula established in the respective prospectuses of the medical colleges were the sole determinants of student entitlement. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this issue of administrative authority and the hierarchy of admission regulations. Pending the final adjudication of these petitions, the Court issued an interim order directing that the cases of the students involved in the petitions be decided on their merits, specifically requiring that the equivalence certificates issued by the I.B.C.C. be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the Court ordered that students meeting the criteria established by these certificates be granted provisional admission to the medical colleges, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen legally competent to issue equivalence certificates converting student grades into marks for medical college admissions?
  • Does the formula evolved by medical colleges in their prospectuses supersede the equivalence certificates issued by the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen?
  • Can provisional admission be granted to students based on equivalence certificates pending the final decision of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jiwan Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
• Jhanda vs Muhammad Sabir and another1998 MLD 999 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Mughal vs District Council, Okara and 2 others1998 PLD Lahore 209 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Jehan Ara vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1784 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Jaweed Khan vs The State1998 MLD 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Jawad Habib vs Secretary, Education Department, Government of N.-1998 MLD 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Javedan Cement Mehnat Kash Union and anothers vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 2182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-06
  privatizationlachesacquiescencewaiverstate-owned enterprisesconstitutional petitionpublic property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by an employees' union challenging the privatization process of Javedan Cement Company Limited. The petitioners contended that the Privatization Commission failed to adhere to agreements regarding employee buy-outs and that the bidding process was handled improperly. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners, who were not parties to previous litigation regarding the same unit, could maintain a fresh challenge, and whether the principles of laches and acquiescence barred their claim. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court erred in non-suiting the petitioners solely for their absence in prior proceedings, the petitioners were nonetheless precluded from relief due to their own inaction, waiver, and laches at critical stages of the privatization process. The Court emphasized that the State must not suffer financial loss due to delays and that public property disposal requires ensuring the best possible price. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the Commission to finalize the sale in the best interests of the country without further undue delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner be non-suited in a constitutional petition solely for failing to join earlier litigation regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does the doctrine of laches and acquiescence apply to employees' unions failing to challenge privatization bids at critical junctures?
  • Is the disposal of state-owned property subject to the requirement of ensuring the best financial price for the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Nawab vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta1998 PLC (C.S.) 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-01
  service lawpromotioncurrent charge appointmentacting charge appointmentstop-gap arrangementExecutive Engineercivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan regarding the non-consideration of an Assistant Engineer for promotion to a non-engineering professional post. The petitioner contended that despite recommendations by the competent authority, his case for promotion was repeatedly ignored and vacancies were continuously filled through stop-gap arrangements such as current charge, acting charge, or transfer from other departments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the legal propriety of maintaining temporary and current charge appointments for extended durations instead of making regular promotions. Relying on precedent, the Court held that continuing appointments on current or acting charge basis indefinitely violates the spirit of the service rules and instructions. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Court allowed it and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion against any non-engineering professional post on merits, while restraining the promotion or transfer of any other incumbent to the post of Executive Engineer in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Is the indefinite continuation of appointments on current or acting charge basis permissible under civil service rules?
  • Can a qualified civil servant be denied consideration for promotion while the post is repeatedly filled on a temporary or current charge basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Maqbool Bhatti vs Secretary, Irrigation and PowerK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Javed Malik vs The State1998 MLD 1400 · Appellate Tribunal Anti-Terrorism · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State1998 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-08
  undertrial detentionsection 382-B Cr.P.C.life imprisonmentsentencing discretioncriminal appealmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the entitlement of a criminal convict to the benefit of counting his undertrial detention period towards his sentence under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought the benefit of Section 382-B, which had not been considered by the trial court or appellate forums during earlier proceedings. The core legal question was whether the sentencing or appellate court is mandatorily required to consider the extension of Section 382-B benefits and under what circumstances such benefits may be granted or refused. The Supreme Court held that the courts are duty-bound to consciously apply their minds to the question of granting or refusing the benefit of undertrial detention at the time of sentencing or examining a conviction, and discretion to withhold it must be exercised judiciously based on valid reasons. Finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the benefit in this case, the Court allowed the appeal and granted the appellant the adjustment of his undertrial period.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a court to consider the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when passing a sentence of imprisonment?
  • Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to a convict sentenced to imprisonment for life?
  • What are the principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing the benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court omitted to consider it?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad1998 PLC (C.S.) 965 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Regional Director (Ic), Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Faisalabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 933 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Mughal vs Returning Officer, Sialkot Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 384 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-06Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and another vs Qazi Khaliq Ahmed and 3 others1998 CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-29Read full judgment →
• Javed Hussain Shah vs Government of Punjab and others1998 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31
  service matterjurisdiction of High CourtArticle 212interim stay orderService Tribunalconstitutional petitionjurisdictional objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an interim stay order passed by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition. The petitioner challenged the High Court's order, arguing that the underlying dispute concerned the terms and conditions of the respondent's service, thereby falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the High Court's jurisdiction was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant interim relief in a service matter without first addressing the threshold issue of its own jurisdiction under Article 212. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had issued the stay order without considering the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter to the High Court with a specific direction to pass a fresh order on the stay application only after explicitly deciding the question of its jurisdiction in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the terms and conditions of service in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Must the High Court decide the question of its jurisdiction before granting an interim stay order in a service-related matter?
  • Can the Supreme Court remand a matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on an interim stay application if the jurisdictional issue was not initially addressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30
  narcotic possessionchemical examiner reportdelayed dispatchright to legal representationinvestigating officer as complainantpersonal searchbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995, for the possession of 250 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a recovery made without independent witnesses, the propriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, the impact of unexplained delay in transmitting samples to the Chemical Examiner, and the prejudice caused by the appellant being unrepresented at trial. The Lahore High Court held that while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not strictly apply to personal searches during emergency highway pursuits, the prosecution's case was fatally flawed. The Court determined that the complainant acting as the investigating officer, combined with an unexplained seven-day delay in dispatching the contraband to the Chemical Examiner and the appellant's inability to cross-examine witnesses due to lack of legal representation, created significant prejudice. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, laying down the principle that unexplained delays in forensic transmission and the absence of legal representation for an accused in criminal trials undermine the reliability of the prosecution's case and violate the requirements of a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the personal search of an individual apprehended on a highway?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Does the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer in a criminal case cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Does the lack of legal representation for an accused, preventing effective cross-examination, constitute a ground for setting aside a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-22
  qatl-i-amdfirearm injuriesinjured witnessmedical evidencefirearm expert reportArshDiyatsentencingcriminal appealcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Haripur, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of one person and causing firearm injuries to another. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from an injured witness, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic expert reports regarding specific weapons, and the legality of sentences and compensation awarded under the law. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness, corroborated by an independent witness and positive firearm expert reports, firmly established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the murder convictions and life imprisonment. However, partly accepting the complainant's revision, the court enhanced the sentence for the hurt offense, converted consecutive prison terms to run concurrently under section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and modified the compensation from 'Daman' to 'Arsh' equivalent to one-half of the Diyat amount pursuant to section 337-R of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the injured complainant had lost an eye.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an injured eyewitness carry greater weight and require less corroboration in a criminal trial?
  • Can the medical opinion regarding the probable duration of injuries or time of death override direct, unshaken ocular testimony?
  • Whether sentences of imprisonment awarded for multiple convictions should run concurrently or consecutively under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the correct measure of compensation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a victim suffers the loss of an organ found in pairs, such as an eye?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar and anothers vs Sher Muhammad and others1998 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-28
  ex parte decreefraud and misrepresentationlimitation periodSection 12(2) CPCconcurrent findingspetitions for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from concurrent decisions of lower courts dismissing challenges against ex parte civil decrees and subsequent proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The property in dispute had a protracted history of litigation regarding its transfer and allotment. The core legal questions involved whether an ex parte decree alleged to be obtained through fraud could be challenged after an inordinate delay without proper explanation, and the applicability of the law of limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an aggrieved party has knowledge of an ex parte decree and fails to challenge it within the prescribed period of limitation, an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed after several years is barred by time and incompetent. The ratio decidendi is that a party seeking to set aside a decree on grounds of fraud must act diligently within the statutory limitation period from the date of knowledge, and protracted unexplained delay disentitles them to relief. The court affirmed the concurrent findings and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be entertained when filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree?
  • Does the limitation period for challenging a decree commence from the date the aggrieved party acquires knowledge of the proceedings?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on the question of limitation be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal defect or infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmad vs The State Bank of Pakistan Securities Department1998 P.C.T.L.R. 733 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →