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.

• Akhtar Hussain Shah vs Attock Refinery Limited through General1998 PLC 62 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmed vs Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and another1998 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Sessions Judge Rawalpindi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Local1998 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-16
  administrative transferposting policybinding precedentjudicial reviewwrit jurisdictionadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his transfer and the subsequent posting of another respondent as Taxation Officer. The core legal question was whether the administrative authorities acted lawfully in transferring the petitioner and subsequently allowing the respondent to continue in the post under political influence, in light of established Supreme Court precedents regarding transfer and posting policies. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider the binding law declared in Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1995 SC 530) regarding the parameters of administrative transfers. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court's decision was deficient for ignoring binding precedents. The Court reaffirmed the principle that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all judicial and executive authorities throughout Pakistan. The matter was remanded to the High Court to be decided afresh in accordance with the relevant case law and legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Is the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan binding on all judicial and executive authorities throughout the country?
  • Does a High Court err in law if it fails to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding administrative transfers and postings?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar and anothers vs Gujar Khan and 73 others1998 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-06
  adverse possessionconcurrent findings of factcivil revisionrevenue recordinheritanceleave to appealcontradictory pleas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision in limine. The petitioners had originally filed a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession for over 12 years and, alternatively, on the basis of inheritance, while also challenging revenue record entries describing them as mortgagees and tenants-at-will. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently found that the petitioners failed to establish their claim of adverse possession and that their evidence was contradictory. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition while admitting a separate, distinct revision petition. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to prove adverse possession were sound and that the petitioners' alternative pleas of adverse possession and inheritance were mutually contradictory and irreconcilable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence do not warrant interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party simultaneously claim title through adverse possession and inheritance?
  • Does the dismissal of a civil revision petition in limine constitute a valid exercise of judicial discretion when concurrent findings of fact exist?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan vs Liaqat Hayat and another1998 PLD Supreme Court 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-10
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailplea of alibibail cancellationmurderfurther inquirymala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the anticipatory bail of the respondent, who was accused of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to pre-arrest bail based on a plea of alibi and the assertion that multiple accused were charged for a single fatal injury. The Supreme Court held that the plea of alibi was insufficient to justify pre-arrest bail, noting that the respondent's place of duty was only eight kilometers from the crime scene, making his presence at the occurrence possible. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the absence of a specific attribution of the fatal shot to a particular accused does not automatically create grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail requires proof of mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest, which were absent here. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the respondent's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be accepted as a ground for pre-arrest bail when the distance between the place of duty and the crime scene is short?
  • Does the failure to specify which accused caused the fatal injury in an FIR automatically entitle the accused to bail under the doctrine of further inquiry?
  • Is proof of mala fides or ulterior motive a prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the submission of a challan in the trial court create an absolute bar against the Supreme Court interfering with a High Court's bail order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Airport Hotel Skyroom (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Joint Director Labour, EastK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 169 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1998-06-20Read full judgment →
• Air-Conditioning Specialists (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Union of India and others1998 PTD 2155 · Gujarat High Court · 1995-03-23Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Dahar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 951 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1556 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence1998 SCMR 934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-26
  service appealpromotionpay fixationleave to appealFederal Service Tribunalgovernment service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his employment status. The core legal question presented is whether the petitioner's appointment as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (D.C.A.O.) in Grade-18 constituted a promotion, thereby entitling him to specific pay fixation benefits under relevant government instructions. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in its factual assumption that his appointment was not a promotion, relying on an office order explicitly stating his promotion to the position. Upon reviewing the documentary evidence, the Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the appointment was indeed a promotion, which potentially entitled him to the claimed financial benefits. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the merits of the case. The principle laid down is that where an official order explicitly characterizes an appointment as a promotion, the service tribunal must adjudicate the claim for consequential benefits based on that classification rather than assuming otherwise without evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an office order explicitly stating an appointment is a promotion constitute sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to promotion-related pay benefits?
  • Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal based on an assumption that contradicts the plain language of an official appointment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Raza vs Rashida Latif and others1998 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-22
  leave to appealconcurrent findings of factcivil revisionremand of caseSection 12(2) applicationres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment in a civil revision. The dispute involves two competing suits regarding the ownership and possession of land. The petitioner's earlier suit was decreed, becoming final, though the respondents subsequently filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents' later suit was dismissed by both the trial and appellate courts. However, the High Court, in revision, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, remanded the matter for rehearing, allowed for fresh evidence, and directed that the Section 12(2) application be heard alongside the remanded suit. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact and remanding the case without proper consideration of the existing evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised regarding the propriety of the High Court's interference with concurrent findings and the justification for the remand order required further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision?
  • Is it legally permissible for the High Court to remand a suit for retrial without considering the evidence already on record?
  • Does the pendency of a Section 12(2) application against a previous decree necessitate the remand of a subsequent, separate suit for joint adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Waqar vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 844 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Steel (Pvt.) Limited vs The Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Quetta and 2 others1998 PTD 3050 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Steel (Pvt.) Limited vs The Government of Balochistan through Secretary Local Govern & Rural Development, Quetta And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1361 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahsan Danish vs Messrs Allwin Engineering Industries, Karachi1998 PLC 139 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1998 SCMR 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-25
  leave to appealsentence reductioncriminal appealunnatural offenceabetmentsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had reduced the sentences of two respondents convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, for offences under Sections 377 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Federal Shariat Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences. The petitioner challenged this reduction, arguing that the trial court had already been lenient and that the appellate court lacked justification for further reducing the sentence of respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court examined the contention regarding the reduction of the sentence for respondent No. 1, who was convicted under Section 377, and granted leave to appeal to consider whether the reduction was appropriate. However, the Court refused to grant leave regarding respondent No. 2, who was convicted under Section 109, finding no sufficient grounds to interfere with the sentence reduction in that specific instance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Shariat Court was justified in further reducing the sentence of a convict already treated leniently by the trial court?
  • Should leave to appeal be granted when the appellate court's reduction of a sentence warrants further judicial examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz alias Babal Khan Jakhrani vs The State and another1998 PLD Karachi 180 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-13
  harassmentadministrative excessrule of lawdue processpublic servant accountabilityconstitutional petitionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former parliamentarian alleging harassment by the Deputy Commissioner of Jacobabad, who purportedly acted at the behest of political rivals. The petitioner claimed his life, liberty, and dignity were threatened by the respondent's actions. The core legal question concerned whether the Deputy Commissioner’s administrative actions—specifically, initiating recovery proceedings for long-outstanding dues based on verbal information and telephone inquiries—were legally authorized and bona fide. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his lawful authority, as no statutory provision empowered him to conduct such proceedings in this manner. The Court emphasized that administrative actions must be in writing, transparent, and grounded in law, rather than based on verbal orders or political influence. It reaffirmed that public servants are bound by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally, regardless of political affiliation. The judgment established that the judiciary serves as a bulwark against administrative tyranny, mandating that public officials must act objectively, adhere to due process, and remain free from the influence of political masters, ensuring the rule of law prevails over the whims of individuals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant initiate administrative recovery proceedings based solely on verbal information and telephone inquiries?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to decline a request to withdraw a petition once the legal process has been set in motion?
  • Are public servants legally obligated to obey the orders of higher authorities if such orders are illegal?
  • Does a Deputy Commissioner possess the authority to act outside of written legal procedures when exercising administrative powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hassan Khan vs Naveed Abbas and anothers1998 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-19
  specific performancesale agreementconcurrent findingsleave to appealburden of proofpossession suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a sale agreement and the decreeing of the respondents' suit for possession. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner had sufficiently proven the existence of a sale agreement and the payment of consideration, and whether the case warranted a remand due to the pendency of a related Regular First Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged sale agreement or the payment of consideration, noting that the witnesses produced were not signatories to the receipt and that the signatures on the receipt did not match the respondents' admitted signatures. Furthermore, the Court declined to remand the case, holding that the petitioner had failed to request the High Court to consolidate the appeals. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the validity of documents and evidence will not be disturbed unless they are clearly contrary to the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek a remand of a case on the grounds of a pending related appeal if they failed to request the consolidation of such appeals before the High Court?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the authenticity of signatures and evidence generally subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable where the plaintiff fails to produce the underlying sale agreement and fails to prove the payment of consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Bakhsh vs Mehru and others1998 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11
  evacuee propertyallotment cancellationsettlement authoritiesverified claimsauction validityRehabilitation and Settlement Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an auction of evacuee agricultural land. The respondents were original proposed transferees of the land against verified claims, but their allotment remained unconfirmed when the Settlement Authorities issued a memorandum on 25-6-1973, cancelling all unconfirmed proposals. Subsequently, the land was auctioned to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of the respondents' unconfirmed proposals via the 1973 memorandum was lawful, thereby justifying the subsequent auction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had declared the auction void. Relying on the principle established in Mst. Inayat Bibi v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1978 Lah. 252), the Court held that the 1973 memorandum was without lawful authority. Consequently, no legal impediment existed to prevent the confirmation of the respondents' proposals. The Court affirmed that Settlement Authorities have a statutory duty to formalize allotments once proposed, and claimants should not suffer for the authorities' failure to perform their duties within the prescribed timeframes under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Does an office memorandum cancelling unconfirmed proposals for evacuee agricultural land hold legal validity?
  • Is it the statutory duty of Settlement Authorities to formalize the transfer of land once a proposal has been made in favor of a claimant?
  • Can an auction of land be declared void if the underlying allotment proposal in favor of another party was unlawfully cancelled?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmadullah vs (Mst.) Sarder BibiK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar Chohan vs Federal Public Service Commission and 2 others1998 MLD 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06
  C.S.S. recruitmentprovincial quota systemfederal structurefundamental rights suspensionequality of opportunityproclamation of emergencyaffirmative action
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a challenge to the quota system used for Central Superior Services (C.S.S.) recruitment. The respondent challenged the validity of the regional/provincial quota system, arguing it violated constitutional provisions regarding equality. The Lahore High Court examined whether the quota system, which allocates vacancies based on provincial representation, remained valid after the expiration of the twenty-year period specified in Article 27 of the Constitution. The Court held that the quota system is essential to maintain the federal structure of Pakistan and ensure adequate representation of all federating units. Crucially, the Court noted that the enforcement of fundamental rights, including Articles 18, 25, and 27, was suspended due to the Proclamation of Emergency and a Presidential Order. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that equality is for equals and that relative equality permits affirmative action to mitigate social and regional disparities. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, allowing the Federal Government to proceed with appointments based on the established recruitment policy and regional quotas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suspension of fundamental rights during a Proclamation of Emergency preclude challenges to the C.S.S. quota system?
  • Is the regional quota system for C.S.S. appointments consistent with the federal structure of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the state apply relative equality to justify reservations in public service appointments for under-represented regions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar and others vs The State1998 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-27
  murderbenefit of doubtappraisal of evidencesuppression of material factsland disputeconflicting versionscriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, Ahmad Yar, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal question involved the evaluation of conflicting versions of a nocturnal armed clash arising from a land dispute over agricultural property, specifically examining the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the presence of deceased and eyewitnesses at the spot, the suppression of material facts, and the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution version was riddled with falsehood, fabrication, and suppression of material facts, noting that the presence of the deceased and the complainant's family members at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful, that critical eyewitnesses were withheld, and that the same set of evidence had already been rejected to acquit co-accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution suppresses material facts, presents an implausible narrative, and the same evidence has been discredited as to co-accused, the capital conviction cannot be sustained and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to present a plausible narrative regarding the presence of eyewitnesses and the deceased at the scene warrants the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on the same set of evidence that has already been rejected by the courts for the acquittal of co-accused?
  • What is the legal effect of the non-production of a material witness who was present at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher Khan and anothers vs Additional Commissioner1998 SCMR 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-24
  constitutional jurisdictionfraud and misrepresentationbona fide purchaserallotment of landMukhbari applicationevacuee lawsdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the cancellation of land allotments. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere with findings that the original land allotment was based on fraud, misrepresentation, and a fictitious claim, and whether the petitioners, claiming to be bona fide purchasers, were entitled to relief. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to protect illegal or ill-gotten gains derived from fraud and forgery. The Court found that the petitioners purchased the land during the pendency of Mukhbari proceedings, after the bogus nature of the claim had already been established by the Additional Commissioner. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in exercise of its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, will not annul an order that exposes fraud and forgery, even if the order itself might be technically flawed, as such jurisdiction cannot be used to perpetuate injustice or retain benefits obtained through illegal means.

  Questions settled

  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to retain land obtained through fraud and forgery?
  • Does the purchase of land during the pendency of Mukhbari proceedings negate a plea of being a bona fide purchaser for value?
  • Will the High Court interfere with an order that exposes fraud even if the order is technically without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saleem, Inspector of Police (Presently Posted in Police Lines, Lahore) vs Ch. Muhammad Amin, Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others1998 P Cr. L J 170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-11
  quashment of FIRpolice investigationwrit jurisdictionsecond FIRmala fidesself-defenseconstitutional petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment of F.I.R. No. 212 of 1996 and the transfer of investigation, alleging that the police investigation into the murder of Fawad Riaz was mala fide. The petitioner, a police officer, argued that his actions were protected under statutory provisions regarding official duties and self-defense, and challenged the registration of a second F.I.R. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would not interfere with an ongoing police investigation or conduct a parallel inquiry, particularly when the investigation was complete and ready for submission to the trial court. The Court affirmed that allegations of mala fides are factual matters unsuitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, it held that the registration of a second F.I.R. is permissible in specific circumstances and that statutory defenses, such as self-defense, must be established by the accused during the trial, not through constitutional proceedings. The Court emphasized that it should not substitute its own findings for those of the investigating authorities, thereby maintaining the separation between investigative and judicial functions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with an ongoing police investigation in exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the registration of a second FIR permissible when the first FIR is found to be false or incomplete?
  • Should claims of self-defense or statutory immunity be adjudicated during the investigation stage or at trial?
  • Can allegations of mala fides regarding a police investigation be resolved through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed Awan vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District1998 CLC 511 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed Awan vs Deputy Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 778 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz Shah, Senior Intelligence Officer vs Chairman, Central1998 PLC (C.S.) 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26
  service lawpromotion quotaadministrative instructionsanti-dated promotionstatutory rulesCentral Board of Revenueleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Senior Intelligence Officer, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his claim for anti-dated promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. The petitioner argued that his promotion should have occurred in 1990 based on his eligibility under S.R.O. 249(I)/79, which reserved 5% of vacancies for specific ministerial staff. He contended that subsequent instructions and letters issued by the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.), which expanded the eligibility criteria to include other categories of staff and effectively bypassed his seniority, were issued without legal authority as they lacked the status of a formal S.R.O. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's challenge raised significant legal questions regarding whether administrative instructions could override or amend statutory rules governing promotion quotas. Finding that the matter involved a substantial question of general importance regarding the validity of administrative instructions issued in contravention of established statutory notifications, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the petitioner was entitled to promotion from the date he originally became eligible.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue amend or override a statutory S.R.O. governing promotion quotas?
  • Is a public servant entitled to anti-dated promotion if they were eligible under the prevailing statutory rules at the time of the vacancy?
  • Does the expansion of eligibility criteria for promotion through departmental letters without a formal S.R.O. constitute a valid exercise of authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz Shah vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others1998 SCMR 1163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26
  leave to appealservice tribunalpromotion quotaseniorityadministrative instructionscivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning a claim for ante-dated promotion. The petitioner, an Office Superintendent, sought promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under a 5 per cent quota established by an S.R.O. issued in 1979. Subsequent administrative instructions and letters issued by the Central Board of Revenue expanded eligibility to other ministerial staff, resulting in juniors being promoted ahead of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns whether administrative instructions or letters can amend or override statutory rules framed under formal notifications to alter promotion criteria and seniority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the validity of altering statutory S.R.O. provisions through mere administrative instructions raises a substantial question of general importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether administrative instructions or letters can amend or override a statutory S.R.O. governing promotion quotas and eligibility?
  • Is an employee entitled to ante-dated promotion from the date of recommendation when subsequent administrative instructions alter eligibility criteria?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 473 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and others vs Allah Diwaya and others1998 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05
  leave to appealpedigree-tableproof of documentsinheritance disputecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed the respondents' suit to the extent of a half share in the suit land as legal heirs of Mst. Bachi. The core legal question raised before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts rightly relied upon pedigree-tables, Exh.P.10 and Exh.D.4, without the formal proof of their contents by examining a witness. The Supreme Court held that prima facie, previous judicial precedents support the petitioners' contention that the mere exhibition of a pedigree-table as a document is insufficient without its contents being duly proved through evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the courts below can rely upon a pedigree-table without the examination of a witness to prove its contents?
  • Is the mere exhibition of a pedigree-table as a document sufficient proof of its contents under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali, S.E. (Structure) S.D.O., Peshawar and others vs Government1998 PLC (C.S.) 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-18
  civil serviceseniorityreinstatementpromotionvested rightservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the seniority rights of a civil servant who was dismissed from service and subsequently reinstated. The core legal question is whether a civil servant, upon reinstatement, can claim seniority over colleagues who were promoted to a higher grade during the period the reinstated officer was out of service. The Court held that seniority is not a vested right and, under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973, seniority in a higher grade takes effect from the date of regular appointment to that grade. The Court determined that because the respondent was dismissed and reinstated with specific conditions—including the forfeiture of service benefits for the intervening period—he could not claim seniority over those promoted while he was absent. The principle laid down is that a reinstated civil servant cannot claim seniority over juniors promoted during his absence, especially when the reinstatement order explicitly denies service benefits for the intervening period, and the promotion of juniors occurred on a regular basis prior to the respondent's own promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim seniority over colleagues promoted to a higher grade during the period the civil servant was dismissed from service?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to a particular position in a seniority list?
  • Can a reinstatement order that explicitly denies service benefits for an intervening period be overridden to grant seniority?
  • Does the principle of seniority in a higher grade take effect from the date of regular appointment to that grade?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1800 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Anjum vs Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and 6 others1998 SCMR 1950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-16
  leave to appealtax on transfer of immovable propertyexemption from taxurban immovable propertystatutory interpretationlocal council tax
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the interpretation of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981, concerning the imposition of tax on transfer of immovable property. The High Court had held that registered gift deeds in respect of urban immovable properties are exempt from the tax levied by the local council because exemptions were mentioned for agricultural lands. The core legal question was whether urban immovable properties could be inferred to be exempt from the tax on transfer of immovable property when the rules explicitly provided exemptions only for agricultural land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's construction was prima facie not founded on principles of statutory interpretation, as a subject not specifically exempted cannot be categorized as exempt by stretching the rule. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, dispensed with the requirement of a certified copy of the impugned judgment under the circumstances, restrained any refund of collected amounts, and directed that gift tax on urban immovable properties be collected and kept in a separate account pending the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether urban immovable properties are exempt from the tax on transfer of immovable property under the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981?
  • Can a subject that does not specifically stand exempted under a taxing statute or rule be brought into the category of exemption through interpretation?
  • Whether the requirement of attaching a certified copy of the impugned judgment with a petition for leave to appeal can be dispensed with under exceptional circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali and others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary1998 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-18
  civil servantseniorityreinstatementpromotionservice tribunalmartial law
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arise from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which had declared the respondent senior to the appellants in the grade of Superintending Engineer (S.E.). The respondent, previously an Executive Engineer, was dismissed from service by the Martial Law Authorities and later reinstated subject to specific conditions forfeiting benefits of the intervening period and treating it as extraordinary leave without pay. Meanwhile, the appellants were regularly promoted to S.E. while the respondent was out of service. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, upon reinstatement after dismissal, can claim seniority in a higher grade over colleagues who were junior in the lower grade but regularly promoted during the period the reinstated officer was out of service. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order, and upheld the departmental seniority list, holding that seniority in a higher grade takes effect from the date of regular appointment, and a reinstated employee cannot claim seniority over those promoted during their absence when reinstatement was not a complete exoneration and carried restrictive conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant reinstated in service after dismissal can claim seniority over colleagues junior to them in the lower grade who were regularly promoted while the civil servant was out of service?
  • Does the treatment of an intervening period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay override specific conditions of reinstatement that bar the claiming of service benefits?
  • Whether seniority in a higher grade takes effect from the date of regular appointment or from the date an officer became eligible for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Abdullah and 2 others vs Pakistan and 2 others1998 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-12
  miscellaneous applicationdisposed of matterprivatizationsteel millsauction bid
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of civil appeal concerning the privatization and sale of Quality Steel Mills Ltd. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should enter into a factual controversy regarding the reduction of the sale price per share in a miscellaneous application after the appeal had already been disposed of and possession handed over to a third-party purchaser. The Supreme Court held that since the controversy involves the investigation of certain facts and the petitioners were not heard when the prior order was passed, the Court was not inclined to delve into the matter. The key principle laid down is that disputed factual controversies arising post-disposal of an appeal should not be entertained in a miscellaneous application by the apex court, and parties should instead approach the appropriate legal forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a miscellaneous application to investigate factual controversies in a matter that has already been disposed of?
  • Does a former owner have a legal right to re-open a concluded auction process and claim a reduced price offered to a third party?
  • Can a miscellaneous application be used to challenge a sale agreement executed pursuant to a court's earlier order?
  Read full judgment →
• Agrocargo Transport Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1325 · Madras High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Agha Syed Ali Raza Shah and 11 others vs Pakistan International1998 PLC (C.S.) 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-20Read full judgment →
• Agha Salim Khurshid and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-16
  contract employmentpremature terminationshow-cause noticeNational Industrial Relations Commissiontermination simpliciterIndustrial Relations OrdinanceBPS-20salary in lieu of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of two civil appeals arising from decisions of the Lahore and Peshawar High Courts, which dismissed writ petitions challenging the premature termination of contract services. The appellants were practicing lawyers appointed on a contract basis as Members of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) in BPS-20. The Federal Government terminated their services pursuant to an approved summary, offering salary in lieu of notice. The appellants contended that their appointments were statutory under Section 22-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (I.R.O.), that termination required a prior show-cause notice, and that specific approval from the Prime Minister was lacking.

  The Supreme Court held that the summary terminating contract appointments was explicitly approved by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, where an appointment is purely contractual and explicitly provides for termination upon notice or salary in lieu thereof without assigning reasons, no vested right is created requiring a prior show-cause notice. Unless termination is based on misconduct carrying a stigma, a contract of service can be terminated simpliciter according to its terms. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contract employee entitled to a show-cause notice prior to termination if the contract explicitly provides for termination on notice or salary in lieu thereof without assigning reasons?
  • Does an appointment governed by contractual terms create a vested right that prevents termination in accordance with those terms?
  • Does a termination of contract employment simpliciter in accordance with service terms constitute a penalty or carry a stigma requiring a departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Salim Khurshid and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contractual employmenttermination of servicecontract appointeesshow-cause noticeservice contractcivil servantstermination in lieu of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the termination of contract-based employment of the appellants by the Federal Government. The core legal questions were whether the termination of contract employees required specific approval from the Prime Minister, and whether such employees were entitled to a show-cause notice prior to termination. The Supreme Court held that the termination was valid, as the Establishment Division had obtained the express approval of the Prime Minister for the termination of contract appointees. Regarding the necessity of notice, the Court distinguished the present case from those involving permanent civil servants or termination based on misconduct. It held that where employment is governed by a specific contract containing a clause for termination upon notice or payment in lieu thereof, the employer may terminate the service in accordance with those terms without assigning reasons or providing a show-cause notice. The key principle laid down is that contractual employment is governed by the terms of the agreement; provided the termination aligns with the stipulated contractual provisions, it does not create a vested right to a hearing or notice, absent allegations of misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of a contract employee based on specific contractual terms require a show-cause notice?
  • Is the termination of a contract employee valid if it is executed pursuant to an omnibus approval granted by the Prime Minister?
  • Does a contract of service providing for termination on notice create a vested right to a hearing before termination?
  • Is there a distinction between termination of service based on contractual terms and termination based on misconduct regarding the requirement of an enquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Nadim and another vs The Station House Officer, Police Station, Lohari Gate, Lahore and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23
  quashment of FIRDrugs Act 1976Quality Control Boardprior permissionsubstandard drugsconstitutional jurisdictioncoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered against the petitioners under the Drugs Act, 1976, concerning alleged spurious and substandard drug samples. The core legal question was whether a Drug Inspector is competent to lodge an F.I.R. for offences under the Drugs Act without obtaining prior permission from the Provincial Quality Control Board. The Court held that obtaining prior permission from the Quality Control Board as mandated by the relevant provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976 and the Drug Rules is a condition precedent for registering a criminal case, and in the absence of such permission, the initiation of proceedings is without lawful authority, coram non judice, and mala fide. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings initiated under the Drugs Act, 1976 without the mandatory prior sanction of the Quality Control Board are illegal and liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an F.I.R. under the Drugs Act, 1976 can be registered without the prior permission of the Provincial Quality Control Board?
  • Does the failure to obtain prior permission from the Quality Control Board render criminal proceedings under the Drugs Act coram non judice?
  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. lodged in violation of mandatory statutory prerequisites under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Mukhtar Ali vs Deputy Director, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation, Regional Office, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 648 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-07-09
  dismissal from servicemisconductbias in disciplinary proceedingsjudge in own causeservice appealreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged the appellant's dismissal from service as a Driver under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules following allegations of misconduct, including unauthorized absence, refusal to perform assigned duties, and being a habitual absentee. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry, imposition of major penalty, and dual roles assumed by the authority vitiated the dismissal order. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the charges were either vague, disproved by medical evidence, or legally barred from being re-litigated, and that combining the roles of complainant, prosecutor, and judge rendered the proceedings biased and unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal order, modified the penalty to the stoppage of two increments for three years, and ordered reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when an officer acts as a judge in their own cause, and previous administrative omissions cannot be reused to justify harsher penalties without proper independent inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when the same officer acts as a complainant, prosecutor, and judge?
  • Can previous administrative omissions that have already been adjudicated upon be used to justify future penalties?
  • Whether a major penalty of dismissal can be sustained on the basis of vague charges and absence supported by genuine medical certificates?
  • Can fresh charges be introduced in a final show-cause notice without a fresh inquiry procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Shahban Mirani vs President of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-26
  presidential electionnomination papers rejectiondisqualification of parliamentariansummary enquirydue processwrit jurisdictionlimitation periodpress reports as evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court Full Bench decision that declared the rejection of a presidential candidate's nomination papers by the Returning Officer (Acting Chief Election Commissioner) to be without lawful authority. The Returning Officer had rejected the candidate's papers under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution based on a summary enquiry under Rule 5 of the Presidential Election Rules, 1988, citing defamatory newspaper interviews attributed to the candidate. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on grounds of limitation and merits. It held that under Article 63(2) of the Constitution, a sitting Senator or M.N.A. remains qualified to contest presidential elections until disqualified through the specific constitutional mechanism provided under Article 63(2). A Returning Officer conducting a summary enquiry lacks jurisdiction to declare a sitting parliamentarian disqualified based on disputed press reports. Furthermore, denying a proper defense violates due process under Article 4 of the Constitution, and constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is maintainable when an illegal order defranchises a candidate without alternative remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Returning Officer conducting a summary enquiry under election rules have jurisdiction to declare a sitting parliamentarian disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified from contesting an election based solely on unverified or disputed press statements without a full trial and due process?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an election functionary's order when it results in the disenfranchisement of a candidate without alternative legal remedy?
  • Does a sitting member of Parliament remain qualified as a candidate for President until disqualified through the mechanism established under Article 63(2) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Iqbal Janjua vs Managing-Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines1998 PLC (C.S.) 44 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Aftab Iqbal Janjua vs M.D. Sui Northern Gas, Pipelines Ltd., Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Afghan National Bank vs Haji Akhtar Ali Qazilbash and others1998 PLC 331 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
• Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Hassan Chand & Sons D.B.1998 PTD 1628 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Adddl. District, Judge, Lahore vs Muhammad Younas(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 30) · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-22Read full judgment →
• Adam Limited vs General & Rubber Trading Co., Karachi1998 MLD 579 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-08
  ejectment applicationsublettingdefault in payment of rentwaiver and acquiescenceSindh Rented Premises Ordinancecorporate conversiontenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent, service charges, and unauthorized subletting, following the respondent's conversion from a partnership firm into a private limited company. The core legal question was whether this corporate conversion constituted unauthorized subletting and whether the landlord had established valid grounds for eviction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversion of the tenant-entity, involving the same individuals as directors, did not constitute subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the court found that the landlord had failed to prove default, as rent was duly deposited in court, and had acquiesced to the change in status by failing to object for several years. The judgment reaffirms that a landlord cannot re-litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings and that the principle of waiver applies when a landlord, with knowledge of a tenant's status change, remains silent for an unreasonable period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of a partnership firm into a private limited company with the same partners as directors constitute unauthorized subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a landlord who remains silent for an unreasonable period after gaining knowledge of a tenant's change in status be deemed to have waived the right to object?
  • Does the deposit of rent in court by a tenant preclude a finding of default in payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ada Muhammad vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Local1998 CLC 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmad and others vs Munawwar Saeed1998 MLD 601 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-17
  specific performancetemporary injunctionbalance sale considerationbona fidesalienation of propertycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal from Order arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property. The defendant challenged the refusal of the trial court to modify this injunction by requiring the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance must deposit the balance sale price as a condition for obtaining a temporary injunction against the defendant. The High Court held that in suits for specific performance, it is equitable to subject a prohibitory order to the condition of depositing the balance sale price in court. This ensures the plaintiff's bona fides and protects the defendant from potential losses due to fluctuating real estate values. The Court established the principle that while granting temporary injunctions in such suits, courts should impose terms regarding the deposit of the balance consideration to balance the interests of both parties and prevent unnecessary litigation delays. The appeal was accepted, and the injunction was made conditional upon the deposit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court require a plaintiff in a specific performance suit to deposit the balance sale price as a condition for granting a temporary injunction?
  • Is the deposit of balance sale consideration a necessary requirement to demonstrate the bona fides of a plaintiff seeking specific performance?
  • Should a temporary injunction restraining the alienation of property be modified if the plaintiff fails to show readiness to pay the balance sale consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid vs The State1998 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-18
  criminal forceassaultleave to appeallimitationconvictionevidenceSection 354 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing the sentence to four months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question was whether the evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the victim and witnesses regarding the assault and use of criminal force, sufficiently established the ingredients of the offence under Section 354, despite the absence of physical injury. The Supreme Court held that the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which detailed the accused's actions of grabbing the victim, dragging her, and attempting to remove her clothing, clearly satisfied the definitions of assault and criminal force provided in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting that the delay in lodging the First Information Report was satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed on the additional ground that it was time-barred by 57 days without a filed application for condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of physical injury on a victim preclude a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the grounds of being time-barred when no application for condonation of delay is filed?
  • Does the consistent testimony of a victim and eyewitnesses regarding the use of criminal force and assault satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Additional Collector of Customs Dryport, Faisalabad And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1377 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Additional Collector of Customs and others1998 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Jafri and others vs Azad Government and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 141 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-01-18
  writ of mandamusaudi alteram partemlocus poenitentiaestop-gap appointmentservice lawnatural justicediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court order dismissing a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to implement a directive of the Prime Minister. The core legal question was whether the Prime Minister could unilaterally reverse an appointment order, thereby reverting the appellants, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected respondents. The Supreme Court held that the Prime Minister's order was a nullity as it violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. The Court determined that once an appointment order has been acted upon, the executive authority lacks the locus poenitentiae to recall or rescind it without affording the affected parties a right to be heard. Furthermore, the Court established that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegal order or one that violates natural justice, even if a subordinate official is generally bound to follow executive directives. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court correctly refused to enforce the Prime Minister's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive authority recall an appointment order after the final step of the appointment has been taken?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to administrative orders reversing previous appointments?
  • Can the High Court refuse to issue a writ of mandamus if the order sought to be enforced is illegal?
  • Does an ad hoc promotion create a vested right to a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam Butt And Another vs Iqbal Razaq Butt And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 728 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The Director, Administration Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Faisalabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-01
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementmisconductreduction of penaltyleave to appealWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Naib-Qasid in WAPDA, challenged his compulsory retirement ordered on 5 April 1995 due to misconduct. The Federal Service Tribunal partially accepted his appeal, setting aside the compulsory retirement and replacing it with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect, considering the psychological strain he suffered due to his infant son's severe illness when the incident occurred. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the stoppage of increments. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's reduction of penalty and substitution with stoppage of increments was justified. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's judgment was just, fair, and based on due application of mind, noting that the Tribunal was competent to vary, alter, or suspend the impugned departmental order on valid grounds. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the Tribunal acted within its lawful authority in taking a lenient view.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to vary, alter or suspend an impugned departmental order?
  • Can a penalty of compulsory retirement for misconduct be substituted with stoppage of annual increments under mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The Director Administration, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Faisalabad and anothers1998 SCMR 2335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-01
  compulsory retirementmisconductservice tribunalpenalty reductionleave to appealWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the petitioner's appeal against his compulsory retirement from WAPDA service. The petitioner, a Naib-Qasid, was compulsorily retired for misconduct following an altercation with a Medical Superintendent regarding the treatment of his sick child. The Tribunal had set aside the compulsory retirement order but substituted it with the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments, treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's decision to impose a reduced penalty of stopped increments was legally sustainable after setting aside the compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was just, fair, and free from legal flaw, noting that the Tribunal acted within its competence to vary or alter the penalty based on the circumstances. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal had applied its mind to the facts, and consequently, dismissed the petition, refusing to grant further leniency to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal competent to vary or alter a penalty imposed by a department on a civil servant?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision that has been passed with due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Does the setting aside of a compulsory retirement order automatically preclude the imposition of a lesser penalty by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Mst. Mehri and others1998 MLD 1982 · Board of Revenue · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Military Estate Officer1998 MLD 692 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and others vs Abdul Qadir and others1998 CLC 401 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-11
  land titleconcurrent findingsadditional evidenceburden of proofcivil court jurisdictionnecessary partydeclaration and perpetual injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves cross-appeals concerning a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction over land title. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly reversed concurrent findings of lower courts by relying on a document that was not admitted into evidence and subsequently withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in drawing inferences from such a document, as it was not part of the record. Furthermore, the Court established that once a plaintiff establishes a preponderance of probability regarding title, the burden shifts to the defendant. Additionally, the Court ruled that a party cannot challenge the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for the first time at the Supreme Court level after submitting to its jurisdiction throughout the trial. Finally, it was determined that revenue authorities are not necessary parties in civil suits challenging their orders regarding title. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, dismissed the defendants' appeal, and restored the original decrees of the trial and first appellate courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court draw inferences from a document that was withdrawn from the record and not admitted into evidence?
  • Is a revenue authority a necessary party in a civil suit challenging its order regarding land title?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for the first time before the Supreme Court after contesting the case on merits in lower courts?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the defendant once the plaintiff establishes a preponderance of probability regarding title?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and 7 others vs Sayed Sultan Ali Shah and 5 others1998 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-05
  Shamilat landco-sharer rightspossessory rightsQabza Hissadaripartition of landgift mutationtransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the validity of a gift mutation of Shamilat land. The appellants, successors-in-interest of the original transferor, sought a declaration that they were entitled to possess the land they had reclaimed, despite the cancellation of the gift mutation by revenue authorities. The High Court had restricted the appellants' rights to the extent of their specific share (10 Marlas) in the Shamilat, ruling that the transferor could not gift more than his actual share. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer in Shamilat land can transfer possessory rights (Qabza Hissadari) in excess of their specific share, and whether the transferee is entitled to retain possession until formal partition. The Supreme Court held that a co-sharer in possession of joint land can transfer possessory rights, and the transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor, entitled to retain possession until partition by metes and bounds occurs. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decree of the District Judge in favor of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer in Shamilat land transfer possessory rights in excess of their specific ownership share?
  • Is a transferee of possessory rights from a co-sharer entitled to retain possession of the land until formal partition by metes and bounds?
  • Does the transfer of possessory rights by a co-sharer in Shamilat land confer the same rights upon the transferee as the transferor possessed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 365 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs The State and 2 others1998 SCMR 1771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-21
  Qatl-i-AmdQisasDiyatTa'ziralteration of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from proceedings where the mother and sister of the deceased were charged under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for Qatl-i-Amd. The trial court allowed an application to alter the charge to section 308, holding that since they relinquished or were exempt from Qisas, they could not be charged under section 302. This order was upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the charge against accused persons could be directly altered or framed under section 308 instead of section 302. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that section 308 cannot be applied in isolation or substituted for section 302 at the framing of the charge stage; rather, section 302 remains the substantive punishing section for Qatl-i-Amd, and section 308 operates subsequently upon the offender being found guilty but exempted from Qisas under section 306 or 307. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused charged with Qatl-i-Amd have the charge under section 302 replaced with section 308 at the commencement of the trial?
  • Whether section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be applied in isolation without a foundational finding of guilt under section 302?
  • How do sections 302, 306, and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code interact when an offender is exempt from Qisas?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State1998 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-27
  statutory bailthird proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C.trial delayadjournmentscriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the rejection of bail by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, charged under Section 334 PPC, sought statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), arguing that the trial had been delayed beyond the statutory period. The core legal question was whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail when trial delays are attributable to adjournments sought by the defense. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court clarified that the third proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C. contains an explicit exception: bail is not mandatory if the delay in trial is occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or their counsel. The Court disapproved of previous case law suggesting that defense-requested adjournments do not affect the right to statutory bail, emphasizing that such an interpretation would frustrate the legislative intent of preventing protracted trials. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the delay was attributable to the petitioner's counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C. grant an absolute right to bail if the trial exceeds the statutory time limit?
  • Can an accused claim statutory bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. if the delay in the trial was caused by their own counsel's requests for adjournments?
  • Is the mathematical calculation of time the sole factor in determining eligibility for statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the exception in the third proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C. regarding acts or omissions of the accused include delays caused by the defense counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Mst. Shaheen and 2 others1998 MLD 1216 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Mst. Abida and anothers1998 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15
  Khuladissolution of marriagefamily court decreeconstitutional jurisdictionfinding of factlimitation periodleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner argued that the Family Court failed to independently determine whether the spouses could live within the limits prescribed by God. The Supreme Court examined the merits, noting that the petition was also time-barred by 35 days. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the significant age difference between the parties (the husband being 70/80 years old and the wife 40) and the husband's own admission in cross-examination that the wife harbored hatred toward him. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to re-examine factual findings that were competently concluded by the trial court. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Family Court's reasoning regarding the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was sound, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of a Family Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a significant age difference between spouses a relevant factor in determining a claim for Khula?
  • Does a husband's admission of his wife's hatred toward him support a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shah alias Babar Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11
  bank dacoityidentification paradeweapon recoverychain of custodycriminal appealacquittalexclusive possessionevidence admissibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of Abdullah Shah alias Babar Ali and Asif Mahmood for their alleged involvement in a bank dacoity and murder, alongside an appeal by the State against the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of identification parades conducted after significant delays and the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries made from joint-family premises without independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. It found that the identification parades were fundamentally flawed because the investigating officer possessed photographs of the accused, which were shown to witnesses prior to the parades, thereby destroying their sanctity. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was inadmissible as corroborative evidence because it was found in a place accessible to multiple residents, lacking proof of the accused's exclusive possession, and because the chain of custody regarding the crime empties was broken. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that incriminating evidence must be free from procedural irregularities to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of an accused's photograph by the investigating officer prior to an identification parade invalidate the identification process?
  • Can a weapon recovery be used as corroborative evidence if the item was recovered from a place accessible to multiple residents without proof of the accused's exclusive possession?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the chain of custody for crime empties is broken due to the failure to produce the official responsible for their initial handling?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs The State1998 SCMR 2604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07
  murderleave to appealrelated witnessesdelay in FIRmitigating circumstancesreduction of sentencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced his sentence of death to imprisonment for life while maintaining his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his wife, along with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R., the establishment of motive, and the adequacy of mitigating circumstances for further reduction of sentence. The Supreme Court held that mere relationship of witnesses with the deceased is not a sufficient ground for disbelieving their testimony, that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was reasonably explained by the circumstances of the case, and that the sentence imposed by the High Court was legally justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing established principles regarding ocular testimony and appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased is sufficient ground for disbelieving their testimony?
  • Does a delay in lodging the F.I.R. vitiate the prosecution case when reasonably explained?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances regarding the moral character of the deceased warrant a reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment in a murder case?
  • Can a bald and vague allegation of partial police investigation be sustained without supporting material on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Chauhan and others vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 264 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustlandlord and tenantSindh Tenancy Actabuse of process of lawHari disputeingredients of section 405 PPCtheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal miscellaneous application seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 406/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. concerning a dispute over agricultural produce between a landlord and his tenant (Hari). The core legal questions relate to whether a landlord-tenant produce dispute constitutes criminal breach of trust or theft, and whether such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950. The Sindh High Court held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 were absent due to a lack of entrustment, and that the dispute regarding Zamindari shares was exclusively triable by a Tenancy Tribunal, making criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The court established the principle that disputes between a landlord and a Hari over agricultural produce do not constitute criminal offences like criminal breach of trust or theft, and continuing criminal prosecution in such civil/tenancy matters constitutes an abuse of the process of the court where conviction is impossible.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over agricultural produce constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a trial court have jurisdiction to entertain criminal proceedings regarding a Zamindari share dispute between a landlord and a Hari in light of the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950?
  • Can persons in occupation and cultivating land be charged with theft for removing produce from that land?
  • When may the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that there is no possibility of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 10 others vs Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi1998 PLC 147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Khan through Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Saleh1998 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13
  specific performanceagreement of salemarginal witnessesadmissibility of affidavitrevisional jurisdictionfindings of factSection 115 CPCmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit. The Sindh High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. The legal questions raised concerned the admissibility of an un-cross-examined affidavit of a deceased scribe, the necessity of examining all marginal witnesses to prove a document, and the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction regarding findings of fact when appellate and trial court judgments differ. The Supreme Court held that an affidavit of a deceased person who was not cross-examined cannot be considered as evidence, and execution of a document can be validly proved by a single credible marginal witness. Furthermore, the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact under Section 115 C.P.C., even where appellate findings differ from trial court findings, unless there is misreading or non-reading of material evidence. Leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an affidavit of a deceased person admissible in evidence if the opposing party was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine him?
  • Is it legally required to examine all marginal witnesses to prove the execution of an agreement of sale?
  • Can the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C. set aside a finding of fact by the first appellate court merely because appellate findings differ from the trial court's findings without misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and anothers1998 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-27
  service lawlimitation periodback benefitsad hoc appointmentdiscriminationdepartmental representationcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had dismissed the appellant's claim for back benefits following his reinstatement in service. The appellant, an ad hoc employee, was terminated and subsequently reinstated, but his claim for back benefits was rejected by the department. He argued that he was discriminated against because another employee, similarly situated, had received back benefits. The core legal question was whether a belated departmental representation, filed well beyond the prescribed limitation period, could create a fresh cause of action to challenge an order before the Service Tribunal, and whether the appellant could claim back benefits based on the principle of discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's initial representation was time-barred and that a subsequent rejection of a time-barred representation does not create a fresh cause of action or condone the delay. Furthermore, the Court held that an isolated instance of a benefit granted to another employee does not establish a valid claim of discrimination when the majority of similarly situated employees were denied the same benefit. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a time-barred departmental representation create a fresh cause of action for an aggrieved civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant claim back benefits on the ground of discrimination if only a minority of similarly situated employees received such benefits?
  • Is an aggrieved civil servant required to file a departmental representation within the statutory limitation period to maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the principle of discrimination apply when the majority of similarly situated employees were treated in the same manner as the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-27
  service appealback benefitslimitation perioddepartmental representationad hoc appointmentService Tribunals Actdiscriminationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for back benefits following his reinstatement into service. The core legal question concerns whether an aggrieved civil servant can maintain a claim for back benefits when the initial departmental representation was filed after a significant delay, and whether the subsequent rejection of such a time-barred representation provides a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's representation was filed well beyond the prescribed limitation period without sufficient cause. The Court affirmed that the rejection of a time-barred representation does not create a fresh cause of action or automatically condone the initial delay in seeking redress. It was further held that the principle of discrimination cannot be invoked to claim benefits when the underlying claim is legally time-barred, particularly when the majority of similarly situated employees were not granted such benefits. The judgment emphasizes that statutory limitation periods under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 must be strictly adhered to, requiring prompt action from aggrieved civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a time-barred departmental representation create a fresh cause of action for a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant claim back benefits based on the principle of discrimination if their own claim is time-barred?
  • Is an aggrieved civil servant required to explain the delay for every day of the period beyond the statutory limitation for filing a representation?
  • Does the Service Tribunals Act 1973 allow for the filing of a representation at the discretion of the aggrieved person?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad and anothers1998 SCMR 2071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-22
  leave to appealreinstatementback benefitsdiscriminatory treatmentcivil servicePlacement Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal for back benefits. The petitioner was originally appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Customs Department through the Placement Bureau, but his services were subsequently terminated. Following a Cabinet Division decision directing the reinstatement of employees appointed during a specific period whose services were terminated, the petitioner was reinstated but denied back benefits. The petitioner argued that another similarly situated employee, who was also appointed through the Placement Bureau and terminated, was granted back benefits by the Service Tribunal upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the denial of back benefits to the petitioner, while granting them to a similarly situated employee, amounted to discriminatory treatment. Finding that the contention required detailed examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the denial of back benefits to a reinstated civil servant constitutes discriminatory treatment if such benefits were granted to another similarly situated employee?
  • Whether employees reinstated pursuant to the Cabinet Division's policy decision are entitled to back benefits for the period they remained out of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Chairman, C.B.R., Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-22
  leave to appealservice appealback benefitsreinstatementdiscriminatory treatmentFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal regarding the refusal of back benefits upon his reinstatement. The brief facts indicate that the petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Customs Department in February 1990 via the Placement Bureau, and his services were terminated on January 2, 1991. Following remand and a subsequent Cabinet Division decision directing the reinstatement of persons appointed between December 2, 1988, and August 6, 1990, whose services were terminated, the petitioner was reinstated on December 8, 1993, but denied back benefits. The petitioner contended that the denial amounted to discriminatory treatment, citing a precedent where another similarly situated employee was granted back benefits by the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding discriminatory treatment required examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant reinstated in service pursuant to a Cabinet decision is entitled to back benefits?
  • Does the denial of back benefits to one reinstated employee while granting them to a similarly situated employee constitute discriminatory treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Kh. Muhammad Usman Asghar1998 CLC 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and 2 others vs The State and others1998 SCMR 1807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-20
  triple murderrule of consistencyinterested witnesssentence modificationlife imprisonmentmitigating circumstancerecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal petitions arose from a common judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of three petitioners under Sections 302/34 and 427/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for triple murder, while maintaining the acquittal of a co-accused. The trial court had awarded a sentence of 25 years' rigorous imprisonment instead of life imprisonment or death, treating the prior violent altercation causing injuries to the convicts' close relative as provocation/mitigating circumstance. The convicts challenged the conviction citing interested ocular evidence, rule of consistency regarding the acquitted accused, and doubtful recoveries. The complainant sought enhancement of sentence to death and reversal of acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed both leave petitions, ruling that interested witness testimony is not automatically excluded if confidence-inspiring, the acquitted co-accused stood on distinct factual footing, and the lesser sentence was justified due to provocation from the earlier clash. However, recognizing that a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment is not recognized under Section 53 PPC, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award a term sentence of 25 years' imprisonment under Section 53 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the testimony of interested or related eye-witnesses excluded as an inflexible rule of law in criminal trials?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused standing on a distinct evidentiary and factual footing entitle other convicts to acquittal under the rule of consistency?
  • Does a violent dispute occurring shortly before an incident causing injury to close family members constitute a valid mitigating circumstance against imposing the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahas vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 3 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Subhan vs Haji Ashiq Muhammad through Legal Heirs1998 CLC 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Muhammad Mustaqeem alias Boga and anothers1998 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-14
  culpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden quarrelsingle injuryreduction of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court calls in question a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby respondent No. 1 was convicted under section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether an offence under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to 10 years, and whether the proven facts attract Part I or Part II of section 304. The Supreme Court held that since the act causing death was done without the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, the case fell under Part II rather than Part I of section 304. Consequently, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from section 304, Part I to section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with compensation and fine. The key principle laid down is that culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed without the requisite intention of causing death or specific fatal bodily injury attracts Part II of section 304 rather than Part I.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment extending to 10 years or 14 years?
  • Does a fatal assault committed during a sudden quarrel without intention to cause death fall under Part I or Part II of section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can the Supreme Court alter a conviction under section 304 Part I to section 304 Part II upon finding that the requisite intention for the former was absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor Saqi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 324 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The Additional Secretary to the1998 P Cr. L J 280 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of Punjab and others1998 MLD 500 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Noor Muhammad and others vs The Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Quetta and others1998 PTD 3468 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Noor Muhammad And Others vs The Government of Balochistan through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development, Quetta And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1423 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Dadabhoy and another vs The Honorary Secretary, Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Socieity, Karachi and another1998 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-12
  oral giftMuslim Personal Lawmutation of propertyregistration of documentscooperative housing societyconstitutional petitiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society (PECHS) to mutate property in the names of the petitioners, who claimed ownership via an oral gift from their late father. The core legal question was whether an oral gift of immovable property under Muslim Personal Law requires registration under the Registration Act, 1908, to be valid for mutation purposes, and whether a housing society can reject such a gift solely due to lack of registration. The Court held that under Muslim Personal Law, a person may dispose of property by oral gift without the formality of registration. The Court affirmed that Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, exempts Muslim gifts from the registration requirements of Chapter VII. Consequently, the Court ruled the society's refusal to mutate the property was illegal. The key principle laid down is that valid oral gifts under Muslim Personal Law, satisfying the requirements of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, are legally binding and enforceable, and authorities cannot mandate registration for such transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an oral gift of immovable property under Muslim Personal Law require registration under the Registration Act, 1908?
  • Does Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, exempt Muslim gifts from the registration requirements of Chapter VII?
  • Can a cooperative housing society refuse to mutate property based solely on the lack of registration of a gift deed?
  • Is a donor required to have property mutated in their own name before they can validly gift it to another?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saleem vs The State1998 SCMR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-29
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an order of the High Court of Sindh, which refused to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of an unknown person. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where he was not named in the First Information Report, no recovery was effected from him, there were no eyewitnesses, and his implication was solely based on the circumstance of being last seen with the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the appeal, and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing the requisite surety bonds, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of material pointing towards further inquiry warrants the grant of bail in non-bailable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the FIR and connected only through last-seen evidence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the lack of recovery and eyewitnesses warrant further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under section 302?
  • When can a criminal petition for refusal of bail be converted into an appeal and allowed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Thahim vs Returning Officer and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur, District Sanghar And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 466 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Thahim vs Returning Officer and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur and 20 others1998 CLC 250 · Election Tribunal · 1997-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2004 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and 3 others vs Sultan Mahmood Akbar and 3 others1998 CLC 497 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Government of Sindh and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-20Read full judgment →