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.

• Nabeel Tahir Alias Shahid Rafiq vs The State1997 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and another vs Abdul Nasim Khan, B.E. (Civil) XEN, Highway Project Division, Peshawar and 10 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-17
  seniority listservice tribunaladverse remarksperformance evaluation reportpromotionrelaxation of qualifying servicesupersession
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions arise out of a judgment passed by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent's appeal, set aside an impugned seniority list, and allowed the respondent to retain his inter se seniority in the lower grade. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent's service appeal was barred by time, whether vague remarks in a performance evaluation report constituted valid adverse remarks capable of denying promotion or relaxation in length of service, and whether the respondent was lawfully superseded. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal filed against the departmental rejection of the representation against the final seniority list was within time. It further held that ambiguous remarks in the pen-picture of a performance evaluation that contradicted an overall 'good' grading had no nexus with the performance of duties or relaxation of qualifying service, and did not amount to supersession. The petitions for leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal against the rejection of a representation concerning a final seniority list is within time?
  • Do ambiguous remarks in the pen-picture of a performance evaluation report that contradict an overall 'good' grading constitute valid adverse remarks?
  • Whether the refusal to grant relaxation in the qualifying length of service for promotion amounts to supersession?
  Read full judgment →
• N. R. Dongre And Others vs Whirlpool Corporation And Another1997 MLD 2124 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-08-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. WIL'y Foods (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1997 P.C.T.L.R. 117 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Waseem Construction Co. vs Province of Sindh Through The1997 MLD 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Solvex (Pak.) Limited, Muitan vs Collectoral Of Central Excise,PTCL 1997 CL. 227 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Saif Textile Mills vs Assistant Collector Etc. Ltd.PTCL 1997 CL. 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Prime Commercial Bank and others vs Assistant Commissioner of1997 PTD 605 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13
  withholding taxcall deposit receiptsincome taxstatutory interpretationtaxing statutebanking companieswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of writ petitions filed by banking companies challenging notices issued by respondents requiring them to deduct withholding tax on call deposit receipts issued by them under section 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether section 50(2-B) authorized the deduction of withholding tax on call deposit receipts prior to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1996. The Lahore High Court held that section 50(2-B) applied strictly to instruments involving a transfer of money from one person to another, and did not cover call deposit receipts issued without such transfer during the relevant period. The court laid down the principle that taxing provisions must be interpreted strictly, and where two interpretations are possible, the one favorable to the subject must be adopted. Furthermore, subsequent substantive amendments expanding the scope of a charging provision are presumed to alter the law rather than merely clarify it unless expressly given retrospective effect. Consequently, the petitions were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 apply to call deposit receipts issued without a transfer of money from one person to another?
  • Whether subsequent amendments to a fiscal statute can be construed as retrospective and clarificatory without explicit legislative intent?
  • Which interpretation is to be adopted when a taxing provision is susceptible to two plausible constructions?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pearl Continental Hotel, Rawalpindi vs Collector Of Customs, CentralPTCL 1997 CL. 186 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Khursheed Alam and 2 others1997 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Khurs14eed Alam And 2 Others1997 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Nasir Metal Crafts (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive vs Zasha1997 MLD 1910 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kaikobad Pestanjee Kakalia, Through The Partners vs M/s. Almas1997 P.C.T.L.R. 265 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ittefaq Foundaries (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore vs 1. Collector Of Appeals,PTCL 1997 CL. 221 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• M/s. International Tanners Industry vs Collector (Appeals), Lahore Etc.PTCL 1997 CL. 232 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Flying Board & Paper Products, Lahore vs Central Board Of Revenue,PTCL 1997 CL. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M_S. E.F.U. General LimitedM_S. Adamjee ;Insurance Company Limited.M_f5923193PTCL 1997 CL. 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income taxgeneral insurancedividend incomereopening assessmentadditional assessmentdefinite informationtax rate rebateFourth Schedule
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals were filed by several general insurance companies against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding notices and orders issued by income tax authorities under Sections 65 and 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions pertained to whether the department could lawfully reopen completed assessments to charge tax on the appellants' dividend income at normal corporate rates instead of reduced rates under the First Schedule, whether the total income of an insurance business forms an unbifurcatable single unit precluding lower tax rates for dividends, and whether a prior High Court decision regarding exemptions constituted 'definite information' for reopening assessments under Section 65. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that computation of profits and determination of tax rates are distinct processes. In the absence of specific computation rules for tax rates in the Fourth Schedule, general provisions of the First Schedule apply, entitled general insurance companies to reduced tax rates on dividend income. Furthermore, prior decisions regarding tax exemptions did not overrule established precedents or constitute 'definite information' to justify reopening past assessments.

  Questions settled

  • Is a general insurance company entitled to reduced tax rates on dividend income under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a judicial decision concerning tax exemptions constitute 'definite information' under Section 65(2) to reopen assessments regarding applicable tax rates?
  • Can tax authorities reopen completed assessments merely due to a change of opinion or misapplication of a court judgment on distinct legal issues?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. E.F.U. General Insurance Limited And Others vs Fahimul Haq1997 CLC 1441 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-07
  insurance policylimitation periodclaim rejectionstare decisisjurisdictionchoice of forumsecond appealcontract Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower appellate court and the trial court, which decreed a suit for recovery of insurance money filed by the respondent against the appellant insurance company. The core legal questions involved whether a contractual clause limiting the time to file a suit upon rejection of an insurance claim is void under the Contract Act, whether a suit filed by only one beneficiary (the insured) in the absence of a co-beneficiary bank is maintainable, and whether a choice of forum clause restricting jurisdiction to a specific city is legally enforceable. The Balochistan High Court held that following the doctrine of stare decisis, a clause in an insurance policy requiring a suit to be filed within three months of claim rejection is valid and does not violate sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act. The court found the respondent's suit to be time-barred and not maintainable. Furthermore, the court affirmed that parties can legally agree to restrict jurisdiction to a competent court where two or more courts possess jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the lower courts' judgments were set aside, dismissing the respondent's suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractual clause in an insurance policy limiting the time to file a suit to three months after the rejection of a claim is void under sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is a suit for recovery under an insurance policy maintainable when filed by the insured alone without joining a co-beneficiary bank as a party?
  • Can parties mutually agree by contract to restrict the institution of legal proceedings to a specific court having territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does an agreement between contracting parties to select one of multiple competent courts for dispute resolution violate section 28 of the Contract Act 1872 or public policy?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Brother Steel Mills Ltd., Lahore Central vs 1. Collector, Appeals,Zone,PTCL 1997 CL. 213 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• M/s N.S. Enterprises, Karachi vs Government Of Pakistan Through MinistryPTCL 1997 CL. 146 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan vs Station House Officer, Police Station Kala Bagh, Tehsil Esa Khel, District Mianwali and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mustaqeem vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1732 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mustafa vs The State1997 MLD 2443 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mussratullah Siddiqui vs Province of Sindh Through Senior Member, Board Of Revenue, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, Sindh And 4 Other1997 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mussadaq Hussain vs Habib Bank Limited, Multan Through Senior Vice-1997 PLC 332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mussa vs Ali And Another1997 MLD 1341 · Northern Areas Chief Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Union of Pakistan (C.B.A.) Through Authorised Representative vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad1997 PLC 771 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Union of Pakistan (C.B.A.) through Authorised Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1997 PLC 771 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Adamjee Paper & Board Mills1997 CLC 1046 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Thatta Sugar Mills And Another1997 MLD 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1997 PTD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others vs Mahmood Ahmad Butt and others1997 PLC 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-10
  bank employee dismissalreinstatementback benefitsworkman statusindustrial relationsdisciplinary proceedingsservice rulescompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals filed by Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and two former employees challenging High Court judgments regarding the employees' dismissal and subsequent reinstatement. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal of the employees by an officer inferior in rank to the authority prescribed in the Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Service Rules, 1981, was valid, whether the employees qualified as 'workmen' entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, and whether back benefits are automatically granted upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was invalid because it was executed by an officer lacking the requisite authority under the Bank's service rules, which could not be circumvented by a power of attorney. The Court affirmed that the employees were 'workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Establishments (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. Furthermore, the Court held that back benefits are not automatic upon reinstatement and require proof of non-gainful employment during the dismissal period. Finally, the Court clarified that reinstatement on technical grounds does not preclude the employer from initiating fresh, lawful disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer delegate the power of dismissal to a subordinate officer via a power of attorney when service rules explicitly mandate a higher authority?
  • Are back benefits automatically granted to an employee upon reinstatement following an unlawful dismissal?
  • Does an employee have the burden to prove they were not gainfully employed elsewhere to claim back benefits?
  • Can an employer initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against an employee reinstated on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And Others vs Mahmood Ahmad Butt And Other1997 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-10
  dismissal from servicecompetent authorityworkmangrievance petitionback benefitsreinstatementpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil appeal challenges judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the dismissal of bank employees for alleged fraud and negligence. The core legal questions involve the competency of the dismissing authority under service rules, whether the employees qualified as 'workmen' under labor laws, and their entitlement to back benefits upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that dismissal orders passed by officers inferior in rank to the designated competent authority (President or Senior Executive Vice-President) are invalid and cannot be cured by a power of attorney. The Court further affirmed that employees performing non-supervisory duties qualify as workmen entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the relevant labor statutes, and that back benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement without proof of non-gainful employment. The appeals by both the Bank and the employees were dismissed, while clarifying that the Bank may proceed anew against the employees in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a power of attorney cure the lack of statutory competence of an officer to dismiss a bank employee?
  • Whether an employee performing non-supervisory duties qualifies as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance?
  • Does an order of reinstatement automatically entitle a wrongfully dismissed employee to back benefits?
  • Can an employer initiate fresh departmental proceedings against an employee whose dismissal has been set aside on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And Other vs Mahmood Ahmad Butt And Others1997 PLC 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-10
  dismissal from servicecompetent authorityworkmanback benefitsreinstatementlabor courtgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple civil appeals arising from a Lahore High Court decision concerning the dismissal of two bank employees, Mahmood Ahmad Butt and Pervaiz Akhtar Khokhar, by the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. The core legal questions involved the competency of the dismissing authority under the bank's service rules, whether a non-statutory rule violation bars labor court jurisdiction, whether the employees qualified as 'workmen', and their entitlement to back benefits upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal orders passed by an officer inferior in rank to the Senior Executive Vice-President or President violated the Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Service Rules, 1981, rendering the dismissals void, and that the employees were indeed 'workmen' entitled to invoke section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Court affirmed their reinstatement but upheld the denial of back benefits because the employees failed to plead or prove they were not gainfully employed elsewhere during their dismissal period, while clarifying that the bank remained at liberty to proceed against them afresh in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee governed by non-statutory service rules can invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Does a power of attorney cure the lack of statutory competence of an officer to pass an order of dismissal?
  • Whether back benefits automatically follow an order of reinstatement when a dismissal order is set aside on technical grounds?
  • Whether an employee claiming back benefits is required to assert and prove that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of their dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq and 3 others-Accuseds vs The State1997 P Cr. L 1319 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed Panhwar Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Dr. Mrs.1997 MLD 829 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 612 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-05Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Pakistan Cricket Board And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-12
  master and servanttermination simpliciterconstitutional petitionnatural justicereinstatementstatutory corporationwrongful termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Constitutional petitions challenging the termination of services of employees by the Pakistan Cricket Board. The core legal question was whether the termination of services, effected without prior notice in an employment relationship governed by the law of master and servant, was legally sustainable and whether such employees could invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement. The Court held that since the petitioners' employment was not governed by statutory rules, the relationship was strictly one of master and servant. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners could not seek reinstatement through Constitutional petitions, as their only available remedy for wrongful termination was a suit for damages in a Civil Court. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that in cases of 'termination simpliciter'—where services are dispensed with without casting any stigma on the employee's conduct, integrity, or efficiency—the requirement of prior notice or hearing is not attracted, particularly when the termination aligns with the terms of the appointment letter.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee whose services are governed by the law of master and servant seek reinstatement through a Constitutional petition?
  • Is the rule of prior notice or hearing applicable in cases of termination simpliciter where no stigma is cast upon the employee?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee whose services have been terminated in violation of the terms of employment in a master-servant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mst. Zarina and others1997 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Mailsi, District Vehari1997 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Murtaza vs The State1997 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Murid Hussain vs Divisional Forest Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Forest1997 PLC (C. S.) 657 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muqarab Khan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1353 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs The State1997 MLD 2553 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Munshi Safdar Ali, Patwari and 6 others vs Assistant1997 PLC (C.S.) 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-30
  Patwari appointmentcivil service recruitmentmerit-based selectionwaiting listDepartmental Selection CommitteeIntra Court Appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the appointment of the petitioners as Patwaris. The respondent had challenged the petitioners' appointments, alleging that the appointing authority, the Assistant Commissioner, ignored the established waiting list of successful Patwari candidates from 1984, favoring candidates who passed the examination in 1987, in violation of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. While the High Court initially dismissed the petition, an Intra Court Appeal reversed this, declaring the appointments unlawful, citing improper influence from political representatives and failure to adhere to merit-based selection procedures involving the Departmental Selection Committee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine two primary issues: whether the respondent's name was indeed entered in the register of Patwari candidates prior to the petitioners, and whether the relevant rules and regulations governing appointments were violated in the selection process. The Court ordered the appeal to be heard on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of civil servants based on political recommendations rather than merit violate the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Is the appointing authority required to adhere to the seniority of candidates listed in the register of Patwari candidates when making appointments?
  • Does the deletion of a provision in the Land Record Manual retroactively validate appointments made prior to said deletion?
  Read full judgment →
• Munshi Safdar Ali, Patwari And 6 Other vs Assistant1997 PLC (C.S.) 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-30
  Patwari appointmentcivil service recruitmentwaiting listmerit-based appointmentpolitical interferencePunjab Civil Servants Rulesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the appointment of the petitioners as Patwaris. The respondent had challenged these appointments, alleging that the authorities disregarded the established waiting list of successful Patwari candidates and violated the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The High Court Division Bench had invalidated the appointments, noting they were influenced by political directives from members of the Provincial and National Assemblies rather than being made on merit by the competent authority, the Collector. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, observed that the High Court failed to explicitly determine whether the respondent’s name appeared earlier in the candidate register than those of the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent held seniority in the register and whether the appointments were made in violation of the prescribed statutory rules and regulations governing civil service recruitment. The appeal is set for hearing on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of a Patwari made in disregard of the seniority in the register of candidates is legally sustainable?
  • Does the appointment of civil servants based on political directives from members of the legislature, rather than the competent authority, violate the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to adhere to the prescribed waiting list of successful candidates during the recruitment process for civil service posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Mst. Rukhsana Khan1997 MLD 536 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad And Another vs The State1997 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21
  post-arrest bailmurderous assaultcommon objectunlawful assemblyidentification of accusedsupplementary statementrole of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a bail application by the Lahore High Court concerning two appellants, Munir Ahmed and Abdul Aziz, facing trial for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific allegations against them. Regarding Munir Ahmed, the Court held that despite his name being absent from the initial F.I.R., his subsequent identification by the complainant in a supplementary statement and by eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provided sufficient grounds to deny bail, as he was the alleged shooter. Conversely, the Court granted bail to Abdul Aziz, noting that he was unarmed and his only alleged role was pointing out the complainant, which did not constitute a direct overt act causing injury. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail adjudication requires a careful assessment of the specific role attributed to each accused, distinguishing between those directly involved in the commission of the offence and those with peripheral roles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an accused's name in the initial F.I.R. automatically entitle them to bail if they are subsequently named in supplementary statements?
  • Is an accused who is alleged only to have pointed out the victim to the assailant, while remaining empty-handed, entitled to bail in a case of murderous assault?
  • Can the court differentiate between co-accused in a bail application based on the specific overt acts attributed to each individual?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala through Administrator vs Mst.1997 PLC 102 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Dera Ghazi Khan Through Administrator vs Muhammad Dilshad1997 PLC 210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muneer Alias Munawar Ali And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1622 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Haider vs Government of Pakistan And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 739 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Begum vs Karachi Buildings Control Authority And 5 Other1997 MLD 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz alias Naza vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1624 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Khan Bhutto vs Court of Judge Special Court N0.2 And Other1997 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-19
  leave to appealinterim reliefbail before arrestproclamationconstitutional petitioninterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of Sind, which declined interim relief and bail before arrest to the petitioner in a miscellaneous application pending decision of a constitutional petition challenging the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and the appointment of the Presiding Officer. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in refusing interim relief and declining to suspend the proclamation or prevent arrest on the ground that there was no imminent danger of arrest. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the justification of the High Court's order and, as an interlocutory measure, suspended the proclamation issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, directing that no action, including arrest, be taken against the petitioner pending disposal of the matter. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may examine interlocutory refusals of interim relief and protect a party through interim suspension of coercive processes pending the final determination of constitutional challenges.

  Questions settled

  • Was the High Court justified in declining interim relief and bail before arrest on the ground that there was no imminent danger of the petitioner's arrest?
  • Can the Supreme Court suspend the operation of a proclamation issued under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as an interlocutory measure pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad vs Divisional Engineer, Telephones (External), Telephone Exchange, Lahore1997 PLC 410 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmed vs The State1997 MLD 1177 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs S.P., District Mandi Bahauddin And Another1997 MLD 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad And Others vs Muhammad Iqbal Alias Kaka And Another1997 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-23
  leave to appealcapital chargesentence reductionocular evidenceenhancement of sentencemurder convictionappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction of respondent Muhammad Iqbal for murder but reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The petitioner, Mukhtar Ahmad, sought enhancement of the fine and compensation, while the respondent challenged the conviction itself. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court involve the sufficiency of the ocular evidence provided by prosecution witnesses to sustain a capital conviction, the justification for the High Court's alteration of the substantive sentence from death to life imprisonment, and the adequacy of the fine imposed. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions. The Court held that it is necessary to re-appraise the prosecution evidence to determine if it meets the standard required for a capital charge and to evaluate whether the High Court erred in its sentencing discretion regarding both the substantive term and the fine. The judgment emphasizes the appellate court's duty to scrutinize the evidentiary basis for conviction and sentencing in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal to re-appraise prosecution evidence in a capital case?
  • Is the alteration of a death sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court subject to review by the Supreme Court?
  • Can the Supreme Court examine the adequacy of a fine imposed in a murder conviction upon a petition for enhancement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain Shah vs K.S.B. Pumps Company Ltd. And 2 Others1997 PLC 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-22
  industrial disputemisconductex parte enquirynatural justicesecond show-cause noticeenquiry officerdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and restored the judgment of the Labour Court dismissing the appellant's grievance petition regarding his dismissal from service. The core legal questions involved were whether the appellant was provided a fair opportunity of hearing and leading defense in fulfillment of natural justice, whether the appointment of a specific advocate as an Enquiry Officer was valid, and whether a second show-cause notice was mandatory prior to a workman's dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and deliberately boycotted the proceedings leading to ex parte orders, that the employer has discretion in appointing an enquiry officer in the absence of proven bias, and that neither the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 nor natural justice requires the issuance of a second show-cause notice or supply of an enquiry report unless prejudice is demonstrated. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of an enquiry officer by the management can be challenged solely on the ground of being an advocate associated with the company in the absence of proven bias?
  • Does Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the rules of natural justice mandate the issuance of a second show-cause notice prior to dismissing a workman?
  • Can a workman who fails to appear before the enquiry officer after an adjournment successfully claim that he was denied a fair opportunity of hearing?
  • Whether the non-supply of an enquiry report vitiates disciplinary proceedings against a workman in the absence of resulting prejudice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain And 5 Others vs Fateh Bevi1997 CLC 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad, Riaz And 10 Other vs Executive Engineer, Store and Workshop Division, M.Andi Bahauddin1997 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The Principal, Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab1997 MLD 946 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq vs Deputy District Education Officer, Tehsil1997 PLC (C. S.) 927 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zareef vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 889 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaheer And Another vs Muhammad Zubair And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-24
  criminal leave to petitionhurtquantum of sentenceconsecutive sentencesconcurrent sentencesarsh and damanacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a High Court judgment that modified a trial court's sentencing order in a criminal case involving charges of hurt, stabbing, and related offences. The core legal question concerns the application of separate sentences for multiple hurts inflicted during a single transaction under the Pakistan Penal Code, the legality of running such sentences consecutively or concurrently, and the sustainability of acquittals co-accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions regarding the quantum of sentence, the interpretation of separate punishments for distinct hurts, and the evaluation of prosecution evidence against the acquitted co-accused. The key principle laid down relates to the legal liability and sentencing framework under the Pakistan Penal Code when an accused person causes multiple hurts to victims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person who causes more than one hurt is liable to separate arsh and punishment for each hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can sentences of imprisonment for multiple hurts under sections 337-D and 337-F of the Pakistan Penal Code be ordered to run concurrently rather than consecutively?
  • Whether delay in filing a criminal petition can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the ends of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs The State and others1097 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf and anothers vs The State and others1997 P Cr. L J 933 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1997 PLC (C.S.) 852 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-28
  constitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityactive servicecivilian employeesmilitary organizationservice conditionsPakistan Army Actouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civilian employee of the Special Communication Organisation, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the respondents to clarify the service rules applicable to civilian employees and to decide on his pending representation. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The Court examined whether it possessed jurisdiction over the matter given the petitioner's employment status. The Court held that because the petitioner was a civilian on 'active service' within a military organization, he was subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the express bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits the High Court from issuing orders regarding the terms and conditions of service for persons subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to adjudicate service matters of civilian employees subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Are civilian employees of the Special Communication Organisation considered persons subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 while on active service?
  • What is the effect of Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on petitions filed by persons subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Iqbal and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 2085 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and 4 others1997 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-23
  first information reportpolice investigationextra-judicial killingconstitutional jurisdictionfundamental rightsdistrict magistratepolice rulesmalafide investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Yousaf concerning the alleged lackadaisical investigation by police into the murder of his son. The core legal questions involve the statutory and constitutional obligations of police and administrative authorities regarding crime registration, investigation standards, prevention of extra-judicial abuses, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the police are under a mandatory statutory obligation to register cognizable offenses without preliminary inquiries, and that superior courts possess the constitutional authority under Article 199 to intervene where police investigations are mala fide, without jurisdiction, or violate fundamental rights. The court emphasized that the District Magistrate exercises general control over the local criminal administration and that police must adhere strictly to statutory duties, respect civil liberties, and avoid extra-judicial actions. The petition was disposed of with directions to local authorities to ensure a faithful investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer under a statutory obligation to register a first information report upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence without conducting a preliminary inquiry?
  • What are the supervisory and administrative powers of a District Magistrate over the local police force under the Police Rules, 1934?
  • When can the High Court interfere in police investigation proceedings under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the police have the authority to conduct re-investigations or resort to extra-judicial measures during criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 CLC 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Another1997 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-25
  Lambardar appointmentWest Pakistan Land Revenue RulesRule of primogenitureRevenue authoritiesLeave to appealAdministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the appointment of a Lambardar in village Wahi Qazi Abul Khair. The contest lies between the petitioner and the respondent, who is the son of the previously removed Lambardar. The Revenue authorities and the High Court initially differed on the appointment, with the Board of Revenue eventually appointing the respondent based on the rule of primogeniture under Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The petitioner challenges this appointment, contending that Rule 19(2) is directory rather than mandatory. He argues that Revenue authorities should consider additional suitability factors, including the candidates' education, proprietary landholdings, and community influence, rather than relying solely on primogeniture. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether, in cases governed by Rule 19(2), the Revenue authorities are legally permitted to evaluate factors such as proprietary holding, education, and local influence when selecting a Lambardar, or if the rule of primogeniture operates as an absolute, overriding requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, mandatory or directory in nature regarding the appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Can Revenue authorities consider factors such as education, proprietary landholding, and community influence when appointing a Lambardar under Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968?
  • Does the rule of primogeniture override all other considerations in the appointment of a Lambardar under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The Board of Intermediate & Secondary1997 CLC 587 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-17
  bogus certificatematriculation examinationconcurrent findingsrevision petitioneducational malpracticeshow-cause noticeresult gazette
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for declaration asserting that he had passed his Matriculation Examination and obtained a valid certificate from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan. Upon verification by the petitioner's employer, the Board declared the certificate bogus, leading to the petitioner's dismissal. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit, finding the certificate to be fraudulent based on official result gazettes and statements. In this revision petition, the petitioner argued that the Board could not quash the result after four years under Regulation No. 18 and that a show-cause notice was required. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the Board never actually cancelled a valid result but rather identified a forged document. The Court held that since the certificate was never genuinely issued, the procedural requirements for cancellation of a valid result were inapplicable. The revision petition was dismissed, and the Court directed the Board to conduct an inquiry into how the bogus certificate was issued.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for a show-cause notice apply when an educational board identifies a certificate as bogus rather than cancelling a previously valid result?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be challenged in a revision petition absent misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is a result gazette and statement of failure considered conclusive proof of a candidate's failure in an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs S.H.O., P.S. Cantt., Multan1997 MLD 1483 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Muhammad Hanif and others1997 P Cr. L J 1626 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03
  acquittalsection 249-A Cr.P.C.competency of appealdelay in prosecutionlimitation periodcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jaranwala, passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 419, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to non-production of evidence by the prosecution. The core legal questions involved the competency of an appeal under section 417 against an acquittal under section 249-A, the distinction between acquittals under section 245 and section 249-A, and the issue of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that an acquittal under section 249-A, passed without recording evidence, cannot be challenged via an appeal under section 417 because the appellate court cannot convert such an acquittal into a conviction, and that the proper remedy is a revision petition. The Court laid down the principle that orders under section 249-A are aimed at expediting trials and relieving under-trial prisoners from prolonged agony caused by prosecutorial delays, and appeals against them are not maintainable when the statutory limitation has expired and material facts have been suppressed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent against an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A without recording evidence?
  • What is the distinction between an order of acquittal passed under section 245 and one passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the appropriate remedy to challenge an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a belated criminal appeal be maintained when the appellant has suppressed the material fact of previously filing a dismissal revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs District Magistrate, Kasur And Another1997 MLD 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and Others vs Government of West Pakistan and Other1997 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-22
  procedural orderSupreme Court of Pakistanhearing datesjudicial record
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided text is an incomplete fragment of a judicial order from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It contains only a procedural note stating that the order is to be read in continuation of a previous order concerning the respondents, and it lists the dates of the hearing as 21st and 22nd October 1975. Because the substantive judgment, the nature of the legal dispute, the core legal questions, the court's holding, and the principles laid down are entirely absent from the provided text, it is impossible to provide a factual headnote or summary of the case's legal merits. The document serves only as a procedural record of a hearing date and a continuation of prior proceedings.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The State And Another1997 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-19
  attempt to commit zina-bil-jabrmaterial improvementcriminal appealoutraging modestycredibility of witnessfederal shariat court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 10(3)/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr beyond reasonable doubt based on materially improved statements made by witnesses at trial, which departed from the initial F.I.R. and police statements. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the materially improved and delayed statements of the witnesses could not be relied upon to sustain a conviction for a higher offence under the Hudood Ordinance. Consequently, the Court partially accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under section 10(3)/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and instead convicted the appellant under section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that material improvements made by witnesses in their statements at trial, contradicting their earlier statements and F.I.R., cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction for a grave offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr can be sustained on the basis of material improvements made by witnesses at the trial stage which contradict the initial F.I.R.?
  • Does a delayed and materially improved statement of an eye-witness violate the principles governing the administration of criminal justice?
  • When can an appellate court alter a conviction from an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to one under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen And Others vs Muhammad Shafique And Other1997 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-25
  criminal petitionsentence enhancementcommutation of sentenceappreciation of evidenceocular testimonymotivecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-petitions arising from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The convict-respondent challenged his conviction and sentence, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence of fine and compensation. The trial court had convicted the respondent under section 302 and section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death and imprisonment, respectively. The High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the feeble and ancient nature of the alleged motive. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the death sentence and whether the evidence supported the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence was based on sufficient reasons, specifically the lack of a clear, immediate motive, and that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the High Court's judgment and refusing leave to appeal, thereby establishing that appellate courts possess discretion to commute sentences where the prosecution's motive is deemed weak or shrouded in mystery.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's decision to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment when the motive is found to be weak?
  • Is the ocular testimony of an injured witness and a complainant sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does a delay of several months between an alleged motive and the occurrence of a crime justify the reduction of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1997 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-27
  triple murdereye-witness credibilityprompt F.I.R.chance witnessesmotivedeath sentencemitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the triple murder of three individuals. The appellant contended that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses, the investigation was dishonest, and the motive was falsely attributed to him rather than to the complainant's family. The core legal questions addressed were whether the prompt registration of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) negated claims of fabrication, whether the evidence of eye-witnesses was sufficiently corroborated, and whether the appellant's alleged motive was plausible. The Supreme Court held that the prompt recording of the F.I.R. within fifteen minutes of the occurrence precluded the possibility of manufacturing a false case or planting witnesses. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was consistent and credible, and that the appellant failed to provide material to discredit them. The Court further held that young age does not inherently serve as a mitigating circumstance in cases of multiple murders. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were maintained, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prompt registration of an F.I.R. rule out the possibility of a case being fabricated or witnesses being planted?
  • Is young age by itself a sufficient mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence in a case of multiple murders?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be discarded solely because they are not residents of the immediate vicinity of the crime scene?
  • Does a discrepancy in the date of arrest, when the recovery of a weapon is not relied upon, affect the credibility of eye-witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Chairman, Zila Council, Bahawalnagar1997 PLC 174 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State through Advocate-General1997 P Cr. L J 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs S.H.O., And Other1997 MLD 2097 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-28
  quashment of FIRabuse of process of lawcivil litigationagreement to sellforgerybar of cognizancemala fide registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed for the quashment of F.I.R. No. 666 of 1994 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether a criminal case and F.I.R. can be registered and investigated regarding a document (an agreement to sell) that has already been produced as evidence in pending civil litigation between the parties, in light of the bar contained in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that where a document in question is already sub judice before a civil court in related litigation, taking cognizance or registering an F.I.R. regarding its alleged forgery without a written complaint from the concerned court violates the mandatory provisions of section 195(1)(c) and section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the key principle that initiating criminal proceedings over a matter already pending in a civil court constitutes an abuse of the process of law and mala fide, warranting quashment under the High Court's constitutional and inherent powers.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be registered for forgery of a document that has already been produced as evidence in a pending civil suit?
  • Does section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the police from investigating a document produced in court without a written complaint from that court?
  • Is the registration of a criminal case on the same subject matter as an ongoing civil suit considered an abuse of the process of law?
  • Does the High Court have the power to quash criminal proceedings launched with mala fide intentions while civil litigation is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-20
  Qatl-e-Khatacelebratory firingsifting grain from chaffinherent jurisdictionfraud vitiates proceedingsDiyatcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Ghulam Haider. On appeal, the Court examined whether the incident was intentional murder or accidental death resulting from celebratory firing. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove intent, instead finding the death was an accidental consequence of the appellant's firing during a Kabaddi match. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-e-Khata. The Court sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered payment of Diyat to the legal heirs who had not forgiven him. Additionally, the Court affirmed its inherent power to recall an acquittal order obtained through fraud, specifically the suppression of a legal heir during a compromise. The Court emphasized the duty to 'sift the grain from the chaff' in witness testimony, rejecting the application of the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

  Questions settled

  • Does the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' apply to witness testimony in Pakistani courts?
  • Does a court have the inherent jurisdiction to recall an acquittal order obtained through the fraudulent suppression of a legal heir?
  • Can a death caused by celebratory firing be classified as Qatl-e-Khata under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs District Health Officer, Mansehra, N. W.F.P, And Another1997 SCMR 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-22
  service terminationcriminal convictionjuvenile offensedepartmental inquirymisconductleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the termination of the petitioner's service as a Chowkidar in the Office of the District Health Officer, Mansehra. The petitioner was appointed in 1987, absorbed after probation, and subsequently had his services terminated in December 1992 following a conviction for rape resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years, which occurred when he was approximately fourteen years old and prior to his government service. The core legal question examined is whether an employee's service can be terminated based on a criminal conviction and sentence from the distant past occurring before entering service, without holding a proper departmental inquiry for misconduct. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, holding that the matter warrants detailed consideration regarding the validity of such termination based on past juvenile conduct and the necessity of a formal inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee's service be terminated on the ground of a criminal conviction that occurred in the distant past before entering government service?
  • Is it mandatory to hold a proper departmental inquiry for misconduct before terminating an employee's service based on a prior criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Shah vs Maulana Hafizurrehman and others1997 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Bhatti vs Director, Labour Welfare, Punjab, Lahore and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 727 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Bhatti vs Director, Labour Welfare, Punjab1997 PLC (C.S.) 727 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yakoob vs Messrs Dossal Precession Casting Ltd., Karachi1997 PLC 221 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasim vs Chairman, Port Qasim Authority, Karachi And 31997 PLC 511 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-09-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasi Alam vs Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Islamabad And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 631 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waryam vs S.H.O. and others1997 P Cr. L J 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waryam And Others vs Superintending Canal Officer1997 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. And Other1997 MLD 2763 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Gulfam Begum1997 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Abdul Razzak And 3 Other1997 MLD 472 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-29Read full judgment →