Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Umar Gul vs Ikram Ullah Khan1997 MLD 1917 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1997 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1597 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tasneem Saeed vs Chairman, Managing Committee, Mirage1997 PLC (C.S.) 623 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Yahya vs Deputy Commissioner_Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Islamabad And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 763 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Mst. Fareelat alias Fareelat Bibi1997 PLD Lahore 728 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Mahmood and others vs Station House Officer, Police Station Millat Park, Lahore1997 P Cr. L J 758 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20
  NikahWalisui jurisfreedom of choicemarriage validityF.I.R. quashmentwomen's rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the validity of an F.I.R. registered against them under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that their marriage was invalid due to the lack of parental consent. The core legal question was whether an adult, sui juris woman can validly contract a marriage without the permission or presence of a Wali (guardian) under Islamic law and the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court held that the marriage was valid, emphasizing that Islam confers equal rights on women and that an adult woman is competent to choose her husband without a Wali's consent. The Court declared the F.I.R. to be without lawful authority, as no cognizable offence had been committed. The key principle laid down is that a sane, adult woman possesses the legal capacity to enter into a marriage contract of her own free will, and such a marriage is legally binding regardless of the absence of parental or guardian approval.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adult woman validly contract a marriage without the consent of her Wali?
  • Is a marriage performed by an adult woman of her own free will a cognizable offence under the law?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the right to marry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj vs Muhammad Akhtar And Another1997 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-05
  interim bailbail confirmationjudicial proprietyremandHigh Court procedureassignment of cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which granted interim bail to the respondent on medical grounds and subsequently confirmed that bail. The core legal question was whether a bail application, once heard and granted as interim relief by a specific judge, could be heard and decided by a different judge when the original judge was still available as a judge of the same court. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent order confirming bail was procedurally improper because it bypassed the judge who had initially seized the matter. Relying on the principle established in State v. Zubair (PLD 1986 SC 173), the Court ruled that a bail application should be placed before the same judge who had previously granted interim bail, provided that judge remains available. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the confirmation order and remanded the case to the High Court with a direction that the bail application be placed before the original judge for disposal according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application should be heard by the same judge who granted the initial interim bail if that judge is still available?
  • Can a subsequent order confirming bail be set aside if it was passed by a judge other than the one who granted interim relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05
  pre-emptionpartial pre-emptioncoram non judicetenancy rightsShamilat-e-dehconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order affirming a pre-emption decree granted by revenue authorities. The petitioners contended that the revenue proceedings were coram non judice due to the alleged failure to place the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 before the legislature; that the suit was bad for partial pre-emption for excluding Shamilat-e-deh; that the pre-emption right did not extend to specific Khasra numbers; and that paragraph 25 of M.L.R. 115 was repugnant to Islamic injunctions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the arguments regarding the validity of the 1976 Act and the repugnancy of M.L.R. 115 were not raised before the High Court and could not be entertained without evidence. Regarding partial pre-emption, the Court held that since the pre-emption claim was based on tenancy, the plaintiff was not required to include Shamilat-e-deh. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the pre-emptor's right extended to the specific Khasra numbers under his cultivation, as the vendors had sold their entire interest in the land.

  Questions settled

  • Is a pre-emption suit based on tenancy rights liable to be dismissed for partial pre-emption if Shamilat-e-deh is excluded from the claim?
  • Does a pre-emptor's right of pre-emption based on tenancy extend to specific Khasra numbers under his cultivation when the vendor has sold their entire interest in the land?
  • Can a petitioner raise new legal grounds in a petition for leave to appeal that were not urged before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj alias Kala vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taib And Another vs Zar Gul Khan End 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29
  service tribunal jurisdictionpromotion disputeleave to appealstatutory barservice lawseniority claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had set aside a departmental promotion order and remanded the case for reconsideration. The respondent, an Assistant Sericulture Development Officer, had challenged the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Sericulture Development Officer, claiming seniority. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to the statutory bar contained in the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Supreme Court observed that the contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction appeared to have prima facie merit, noting that the relief granted by the Tribunal might be barred under the relevant service laws. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and whether the subject matter was indeed barred under the applicable statutory provisions. The Court ordered that the status quo remain in effect pending the final decision of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant relief in matters involving the promotion of civil servants?
  • Does Section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, read with Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, bar an appeal against a departmental promotion order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taib and another vs Zar Gul Khan and 2 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29
  service tribunal jurisdictionpromotionleave to appealcivil servantstatutory barseniority dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had set aside a promotion order and remanded the case for fresh consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The respondent, an Assistant Sericulture Development Officer, had challenged the promotion of the petitioners, claiming seniority. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, citing the statutory bar contained in the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Supreme Court observed that the contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction appeared to have merit, noting that the subject matter might be barred under the relevant provisions of the Act read with the Civil Servants Act. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the relief granted by the Tribunal was permissible within its appellate jurisdiction and whether the subject matter was indeed barred by the cited statutory provisions. The Court ordered that the status quo remain in effect pending the final decision of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant relief in matters of promotion where such matters are barred under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the bar contained in section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, preclude the Service Tribunal from adjudicating on promotion disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir And 3 Others vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad1997 MLD 71 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tabarak vs Muhammad Asghar And 3 Other1997 MLD 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sijafi Khan And 17 Other vs M/s. Pak Suzuki Motors Ltd,1997 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The Additional District Judge, Kasur And 21997 MLD 556 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Tariq Mahmood Alam Khan and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Yaqoob And 4 Other1997 MLD 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mansha and others1997 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Government of Punjab, Agriculture1997 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs District Magistrate, Lahore And 3 Other1997 MLD 588 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Wakeel And Another1997 MLD 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Rehman and another1997 PLD Azad J&K 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1655 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs Muhammad Latif And 3 Other1997 MLD 181 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs Dr. Edgar Nathenial1997 CLC 2041 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Ahmad Khan And Others vs Pakistan Railways1997 SCMR 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-02
  service tribunalsenioritypromotionprobationad hoc appointmentselection gradepakistan railways
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan resolves appeals filed against the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellants' claims regarding seniority and grant of Selection Grade in Basic Pay Scale (BPS) 15. The core legal question concerned whether the appellants, who were promoted as Sectional Pay Masters prior to 1973 and labeled as ad hoc by the department, were entitled to seniority and Selection Grade from the date their juniors received them, or whether their promotion remained contingent upon passing examinations and appearing before a non-existent Selection Board. The Supreme Court held that appointment on probation is distinct from ad hoc appointment, that the appellants served continuously without being at fault for the employer's failure to constitute a Selection Board, and that seniority counts from the continuous officiation date. The Court concluded that juniors having been granted the Selection Grade entitles the senior appellants to the same benefits. The appeals were accepted, directing Pakistan Railways to grant the Selection Grade to the appellants from the date their juniors received it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment on probation can be equated with an ad hoc appointment under service laws?
  • Does seniority in a grade run from the date of continuous officiation or the date of confirmation?
  • Can employees be penalized for a department's failure to constitute a Selection Board for their clearance over a long period?
  • Whether civil servants are entitled to a Selection Grade from the date it is granted to their juniors when their promotion predates the juniors' promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique & Brothers vs The I.T.O. Companies Circle-21, Lahore1997 P.C.T.L.R. 276 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The Superintendent of District Jail, Multan And 31997 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1997 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Hafizabad and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 692 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30
  quashment of F.I.R.anti-corruption establishmentjurisdiction of local policescheduled offencespublic servantcriminal misconductPunjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions were filed for the quashment of two First Information Reports (F.I.Rs.) registered against the petitioner, a Head Constable, at local police stations under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, along with section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code in one of the cases. The core legal question was whether local police under the administrative control of the District Superintendent of Police have the jurisdiction to register and investigate corruption cases against public servants, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Anti-Corruption Establishment under special legislation. The Lahore High Court held that the registration and investigation of scheduled anti-corruption offences against public servants must be conducted exclusively by the Anti-Corruption Establishment pursuant to the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 and the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, rather than by the local police. The court laid down the principle that where special laws and rules prescribe a specific manner and procedure for handling corruption offences involving public servants, local police have no jurisdiction to register or investigate such cases, and any such proceedings initiated by them are without lawful authority and liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether local police under the administrative control of a District Superintendent of Police are competent to register and investigate corruption cases against public servants?
  • Do the provisions of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 supersede general police procedures regarding the registration of scheduled anti-corruption offences?
  • Can an F.I.R. for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 be validly registered at a local police station instead of an Anti-Corruption Establishment police station?
  • Whether prior preliminary inquiry and written orders by the designated officers of the Anti-Corruption Establishment are mandatory before registering a criminal case against a public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sharman1997 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-11
  oral gifttamleekfraud and collusionconcurrent findings of factco-owner possessionlimitationmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition challenging an appellate court's decree in favor of the respondent. The dispute arose from an oral gift (Tamleek) of land made by the parties' father in favor of the petitioner, his son, to the exclusion of the respondent, his only daughter. The respondent challenged the validity of the mutation, alleging fraud and undue influence, citing the donor's advanced age and death shortly after the transaction. The lower appellate court and the High Court concurrently found that the gift was the result of fraud and collusion, noting the suspicious circumstances and the withholding of original evidence. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether a gift was the result of fraud and collusion is a pure question of fact. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a co-owner is deemed to be in possession, thereby precluding the application of limitation bars.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of whether a gift or Tamleek mutation is the result of fraud and collusion a question of fact?
  • Does the law of limitation run against a co-owner who is deemed to be in possession of the suit property?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammd Yousaf And Other1997 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The State1997 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-01
  life imprisonmentrule of consistencyocular testimonyindependent corroborationbenefit of doubtacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by two appellants against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained their conviction under Sections 302/307/34 PPC but reduced their sentence from death to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that six accused persons attacked the complainant party near Jora Canal Bridge due to a matrimonial/abduction dispute, resulting in two deaths and multiple injuries. The trial court acquitted four co-accused on the same ocular testimony, finding no independent corroboration, while convicting the appellants. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellants could be convicted on ocular evidence that was disbelieved regarding the majority of the co-accused without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that under the rule of consistency, where the evidence against acquitted co-accused and the appellants is identical and indistinguishable, and no reliable corroborative evidence exists (such as ballistic confirmation), the appellants are entitled to the same benefit of doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical evidence serve as independent corroboration to connect a specific accused with the commission of an offence?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted on ocular evidence that has been disbelieved regarding co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • How does the rule of consistency apply when the case against acquitted co-accused and the convicted accused is identical and indistinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 8 Others vs The State And Another1997 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-14
  discharge of accusedpolice report under section 173 Cr.P.C.quashment of orderabuse of process of courtHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by special leave challenge the Lahore High Court's order declaring the discharge of the appellants under sections 10 and 11 of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, as without legal effect. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a Magistrate's order concurring with a police report under section 173, Cr.P.C., discharging the accused and cancelling the criminal case. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court may interfere under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., in cases amounting to an abuse of the process of the court as per the principle in Arif Ali Khan's case, the interference in this specific case was unwarranted because the accused were sui juris at the time of marriage and the Magistrate's order did not constitute an abuse of process. The Supreme Court accepted the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's discharge order, laying down that High Court interference with a Magistrate's concurrence with a police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. requires a clear showing of abuse of the process of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate discharging an accused upon a police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. acts as a Criminal Court whose order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court interfere under section 561-A Cr.P.C. with an order of a Magistrate concurring with a police report discharging the accused?
  • Does the discharge of an accused person by a Magistrate under section 173 Cr.P.C. bar the aggrieved party from instituting a private complaint on the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1195 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs The State1997 MLD 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Muhammad Sarwar And Other1997 CLC 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14
  specific performancelimitation periodbona fide purchaseragreement to sellnotice of refusalrevisional jurisdictionproprietary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27-5-1960 regarding a property for which he had paid the full consideration and obtained possession. The vendors subsequently sold the property to a third party (respondent No. 3) after obtaining proprietary rights. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, citing limitation and the bona fide purchaser status of the subsequent vendee. The High Court, in revision, reversed these findings. The Court held that where an agreement to sell does not specify a fixed date for performance—contingent instead on the issuance of proprietary rights—the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, runs from the date the plaintiff has notice of the refusal of performance, not from the date the proprietary rights were issued. Furthermore, the Court established that a subsequent vendee claiming the protection of Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, must prove they acted in good faith, had no notice of the prior contract, and exercised reasonable care, including inquiry into possession, which the respondent failed to do.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for specific performance run from the date of the issuance of proprietary rights or from the date of refusal to perform the contract when no specific date for performance is fixed?
  • What is the burden of proof on a subsequent vendee claiming protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if the lower courts' judgments suffer from material irregularity or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham And Another vs Collector Customs And Another1997 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-17
  territorial jurisdictionPakistan Coast Guardscoastal areadefinition of portCustoms Actsmuggling preventionadjudication proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two consolidated appeals concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards under section 14 of the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, in relation to seizures made on the Super Highway, Karachi, and in the Jamia Cloth Market, Karachi. The core legal question was whether these inland locations fell within the definition of coastal areas or were excluded as being within the limits of the port of Karachi. The Supreme Court held that the coastal area is explicitly defined by the First Schedule of the Act and that inland locations such as the Super Highway and Jamia Cloth Market do not constitute a 'port' in their ordinary, popular, or commercial sense, as they have no connection with ships, shipment, or the loading and unloading of goods and passengers. Consequently, the Coast Guards and Customs authorities possessed valid territorial jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the decisions of the High Court of Sind.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Super Highway and Jamia Cloth Market in Karachi fall within the limits of a port so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards under section 14 of the Pakistan Coast Guards Act 1973?
  • How is the term 'coastal area' defined for the purposes of the Pakistan Coast Guards Act 1973?
  • What is the proper interpretation of the word 'port' as used in section 14(1) of the Pakistan Coast Guards Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs Muhammad Ibrahim1997 MLD 2598 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1997 MLD 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah And Others vs Inayatullah And Other1997 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1997 MLD 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs General Manager, P.T.C., C.T.R., Lahore And 21997 PLC 327 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Director Education (SE), Sargodha Division1997 PLC (C. S.) 199 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique And Others vs Akhtar Shah And Other1997 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-17
  dying declarationquantum of sentenceacquittalmitigating circumstancescriminal appealappellate interferencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of three accused for murder, while maintaining the acquittal of five others. The core legal questions were whether the acquittal of the five co-accused was justified, whether the sentence of life imprisonment for the convicted accused was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances of prior enmity, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the quantum of sentence or findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the five co-accused was proper as there was no evidence they had effectively fired at the deceased, and the Court is generally slow to interfere with acquittals absent perversity. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that the determination of the quantum of sentence is primarily the province of the trial and appellate courts, and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless the sentence is against law or sound judicial principles. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the assessment of punishment by lower courts if the discretion exercised is not fanciful.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Is the determination of the quantum of sentence primarily the province of the trial and appellate courts?
  • Can prior enmity and revenge for previous murders serve as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
  • Does the Supreme Court ordinarily interfere with a legal sentence imposed by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs S.H.O., Police Station City Lodhran1997 MLD 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs M/s. Hotel Jabees, Karachi1997 PLC 122 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minorities Affairs And Other1997 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-27
  evacuee trust propertyconstitutional petitiontransfer of propertywaqfsettlement authoritiesjurisdiction of high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition, which sought to challenge orders declaring a disputed well and room to be evacuee trust property. The core legal questions involved whether the property was validly classified as evacuee trust property based on evidence and whether the transfer of the property to the appellant in 1973 was protected under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the trust character of the property were duly supported by oral and documentary evidence, and that the transfer made in 1973 after the crucial date was rightly cancelled. The Court laid down that a special tribunal's finding of fact based on adequate evidence will not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be without lawful authority, and that a declaration of repugnancy by the Federal Shariat Court does not operate retrospectively to invalidate past closed transactions unless specifically provided.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board that a property is an evacuee trust property can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction when based on oral and documentary evidence?
  • Does a declaration by the Federal Shariat Court rendering statutory provisions repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam operate retrospectively to invalidate past orders?
  • Is the transfer of an evacuee trust property made after the crucial date of June 1968 validated under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Khan and 17 others vs M/s. Pak Suzuki Motors Ltd,1997 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1997 MLD 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice investigationinnocencemurdercommon intentionnon-vital part injury
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Shabbir petitioned the Lahore High Court for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 21 of 1996, registered at Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal under sections 337-F(i)(ii), 379/34, and subsequently section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the death of Asghar Ali. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when no fatal injury was attributed to him, injuries caused to witnesses were on non-vital parts, and successive police investigations declared him innocent. The court held that since the petitioner's guilt fell within the scope of further inquiry and two successive police investigations had found him innocent, placing him in column No. 2 of the challan, his case squarely fell within subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while courts are not strictly bound by police opinions, substantial weight must be attached to police findings of innocence when considering bail applications, making such cases subject to further inquiry under section 497(2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person not attributed any fatal injury on the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail when found innocent in successive police investigations?
  • What weight should be attached to the police opinion and investigation report placing an accused in column No. 2 of the challan during bail proceedings?
  • Does a case fall under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when injuries attributed to the accused are on non-vital parts and his guilt requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir And Others vs Anwar Hussain And Other1997 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-10
  easement rightssettlement authoritiesencroachmentleave to appealmisreading of evidenceproperty disputestatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves a dispute over a passage between properties transferred by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. The respondent, claiming ownership of a quarter, filed a suit for declaration and injunction, alleging that the petitioners encroached upon a passage essential for accessing his property. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the passage existed and was used by the respondent, a decision upheld by the first Appellate Court and the High Court in revision. The petitioners challenged these findings before the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts misread transfer orders from Settlement Authorities and ignored evidence that the respondent had alternative access through Khasra No. 229. The petitioners further contended that the disputed area was part of their own transferred property and not a public street. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the contentions regarding the misreading of evidence and the interpretation of the Settlement Authorities' orders required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the parties to maintain the status quo pending final disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant leave to appeal based on allegations of misreading of evidence regarding property transfer orders?
  • Does an order of a Settlement Authority conferring property rights necessarily include an implied right of way over adjacent land?
  • Is a suit for declaration and injunction maintainable when the existence of a disputed passage is contested as an encroachment on private property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir And Another vs Anwar Hussain And Another1997 MLD 708 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Nasir vs Secretary, Finance Division, ISLAMABADAnd Another1997 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-11
  constitutional petitionSecretariat Allowancecivil servantsreasonable classificationfundamental rightspay scalespersonal allowance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenged the validity of paragraph 5(i) of the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated June 15, 1994, which abolished the Secretariat Allowance and provided for its gradual adjustment against annual increments for federal government employees in Basic Pay Scales (BPS) 17 to 22, while exempting employees in BPS 1 to 16 from such adjustment. The core legal questions involved whether the abolition and gradual adjustment of the Secretariat Allowance violated fundamental rights regarding equality, whether allowances enjoy statutory protection under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and whether the classification between low-paid and high-paid employees was reasonable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that allowances are not of a permanent character and do not receive statutory protection under Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which only protects pay. The Court laid down that the classification distinguishing between lower-paid employees (BPS 1-16) and higher-paid employees (BPS 17-22) for the distribution of monetary benefits is a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allowance paid to a civil servant enjoy statutory protection against reduction or abolition under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Whether the classification of federal government employees into low-paid (BPS 1-16) and high-paid (BPS 17-22) categories for the adjustment of Secretariat Allowance constitutes a reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can the federal government abolish the Secretariat Allowance and adjust it against annual increments upon the revision of basic pay scales?
  • Does Article 235(3) of the Constitution provide substantive protection to the pay and allowances of federal government servants outside of a proclaimed financial emergency?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Nasir vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-11
  Secretariat AllowanceCivil Servants Act 1973Equal protection of lawReasonable classificationPublic interest litigationArticle 184(3)Service mattersPay revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Finance Division’s Office Memorandum dated 15th June 1994, which abolished the Secretariat Allowance for Federal Government employees in BPS-17 to 22 while exempting those in BPS-1 to 16. The petitioner contended that this adjustment was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the government’s classification of employees for the purpose of adjusting allowances was arbitrary and whether such allowances were protected under the Civil Servants Act 1973. The Court held that the petition was meritless, ruling that allowances are not protected as permanent pay under the Civil Servants Act 1973 and remain subject to government regulation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that reasonable classification between low-paid and high-paid employees is permissible under the principle of equal protection of law, provided it is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object. Consequently, the Court upheld the government's authority to abolish and adjust the allowance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abolition of a specific allowance by the government violate the constitutional right to equality under Article 25?
  • Are allowances paid to civil servants protected under Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 in the same manner as basic pay?
  • Can the government create a classification between low-paid and high-paid employees for the purpose of granting or withdrawing monetary benefits?
  • Does Article 235(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provide protection for the pay and allowances of civil servants in the absence of a declared financial emergency?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1997 MLD 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Muhammad Azam Khan And Another1997 CLC 500 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-29
  pre-emptionretrospective effectvested rightspending litigationright of prior purchasestatutory amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed in 1988 regarding a sale of land. During the pendency of the suit, Section 14 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act was amended in 1993. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, reasoning that the pre-emptor failed to maintain the superior right of purchase at the time of the decree, as required by the amended law. The core legal question was whether the 1993 amendment to the Right of Prior Purchase Act applied retrospectively to suits instituted prior to the amendment, thereby requiring the pre-emptor to maintain their superior right until the final decree. The High Court held that the amendment did not possess retrospective effect and could not adversely affect rights already vested through the institution of a suit. Relying on the principle that pending actions are governed by the law existing at the time of initiation unless otherwise specified, the Court ruled that the right of pre-emption was protected and the suit must proceed as if the law had not been amended. The judgments below were set aside and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment to the Right of Prior Purchase Act apply retrospectively to pre-emption suits pending at the time of the amendment?
  • Must a pre-emptor maintain a superior right of purchase until the date of the final decree even if the law governing such rights is amended during the pendency of the suit?
  • Does the repeal or amendment of a law affect rights that have already accrued through the institution of a legal action?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And 6 Others vs Muhammad Iqbal And 2 Other1997 MLD 130 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And 6 Others vs Mst. Ghulam Bi And 2 Other1997 CLC 1800 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salffm Khan vs Zameer Ahmad Khokhar And Another1997 CLC 1531 · Lahore High Court · -
  ejectment petitiondefault in payment of rentbona fide personal uselandlord-tenant relationshipappellate authorityrent restrictionwilful default
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the appellant-tenant under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, seeking eviction on grounds of default and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the default claim but ordered eviction based on personal use. The appellate authority reversed the finding on personal use, dismissing the petition, but held the tenant to be a defaulter. The core legal question was whether the tenant was a willful defaulter and whether the landlord's claim for personal use was bona fide. The High Court held that the appellate authority erred in reversing the findings on default, noting that the landlords had previously denied the tenancy and refused rent, and that the tenant had deposited the rent prior to the filing of the second ejectment petition. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the lack of bona fide personal need, citing the landlords' failure to occupy other vacated shops in the same market. The principle laid down is that a landlord cannot claim default where they have previously denied the tenancy and refused to accept rent, and that a claim for personal use is undermined by the landlord's conduct in renting out other similar premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord claim default in payment of rent when they have previously denied the existence of a tenancy relationship?
  • Is a landlord's claim of bona fide personal use negated by the fact that they rented out other similar premises in the same market?
  • Does the deposit of rent by a tenant before the filing of an ejectment petition negate a claim of willful default?
  • Can an appellate authority reverse a finding of fact regarding personal need without considering the landlord's failure to occupy other available premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1997 MLD 1696 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Saddozai vs Chairman, P.O.F., Wah And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-30
  leave to appealseniority disputecompulsory servicearmed forces ordinanceservice tribunalfederal government service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 7-5-1995, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding a seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The Tribunal had relied on section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, to hold that respondent No. 3 was entitled to count a specific period of compulsory service towards seniority, making him senior to the petitioner. The core legal question is whether section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971 applies to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (P.O.F.), or is restricted to employment under the Federal and Provincial Governments. The court held that the contention raised by the petitioner's counsel requires detailed examination and granted leave to appeal to consider the matter further. The key principle laid down is that the applicability of statutory provisions regarding seniority and compulsory military service to autonomous or specific statutory bodies requires judicial examination when contested.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971 apply to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories?
  • Can an employee count the period of compulsory service in the armed forces towards seniority in a corporation or body not strictly under the Federal or Provincial Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Saddozai vs Chairman, P.O.F., Wah And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-30
  service appealseniorityarmed forces compulsory serviceleave to appealfederal service tribunalstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal regarding seniority against respondent No.3. The Tribunal had held that under section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, respondent No.3 was entitled to count his period of compulsory military service towards his seniority in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (P.O.F.). Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that section 9-A applied exclusively to employment under the Federal and Provincial Governments and did not extend to services under P.O.F., which constituted neither. The Supreme Court found that this contention required detailed examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal to consider the applicability of the statutory provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971 apply to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories?
  • Whether the period served in compulsory armed forces can be counted towards seniority in autonomous or corporate bodies under the Federal Government?
  • Does the term service under the Federal Government encompass service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories for the purpose of seniority computation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab.1997 PLC (C. S.) 687 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 687 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communications and Works Department, Lahore And 4 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  service appealleave to appealsplit decisionservice tribunalpro forma promotionremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 challenging departmental orders regarding his promotion. The Tribunal originally commenced hearing with a bench comprising its Chairman and two members, but during the proceedings, one member ceased to be a member and a third member was subsequently appointed. The appeal was ultimately heard only by the Chairman and one member, resulting in a split decision where the Chairman dismissed the appeal on limitation and other grounds, while the member allowed it on merits. The Chairman applied rule 24 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 to treat the judgment as that of two members and dismissed the appeal. Upon review, with the consent of both parties' counsel, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned decision of the Tribunal, and remitted the case back to be heard and disposed of by the full Tribunal on the available material.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal render a valid decision through a split bench when the membership changes during proceedings?
  • Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal must be heard by the full Tribunal when a vacancy is filled after the departure of a member?
  • Can the Supreme Court remit a service matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision with the consent of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem And 4 Others vs Mirza Zafarul Haq Baig And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-26
  evacuee landallotmentwrit petitiondisputed questions of factleave to appealinformer share
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition regarding the allotment of evacuee land. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents were allotted land in excess of their entitlement and whether the High Court ignored its earlier judgment dated 9-12-1985 passed in Writ Petition No.623/R of 1976. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly considered the factual aspects, noting that the determination of excess land and subsisting holdings involved disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction, while leaving it open for the Chief Settlement Commissioner to examine any excess allotment to the informers. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the prior orders were duly respected and no legal infirmity existed in the impugned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding land entitlement and subsisting holdings can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does an informer receive land in excess of their entitlement when prior judicial directions are duly factored into the settlement process?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of the High Court regarding property allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Alias Seema And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar And Others vs Mumtaz Begum And Other1997 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-10
  leave to appealgift deedlife estatecustomary lawinheritanceconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for joint possession of agricultural land. The core legal question involves determining the nature of the estate—whether absolute or limited for life—conferred upon a widow under a registered gift deed executed in 1942, and the effect of the enactment of the West Pakistan Shariat Application Act, 1962 upon it. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the learned Single Judge was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact and law on the basis of the material on record and the applicable law, noting contentions regarding limitation under the Punjab Limitation Custom Act No.1 of 1920. The Court held that arguable questions were raised and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered gift deed confers an absolute ownership or a limited estate for life upon the donee?
  • Did the enactment of the West Pakistan Shariat Application Act, 1962 terminate a limited life estate held under customary law?
  • Whether a gift executed under customary law is barred by limitation under the Punjab Limitation Custom Act No.1 of 1920?
  • Was the High Court justified in reversing concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below on the basis of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salam And Others vs Wali Muhammad And Other1997 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-09
  pre-emptionrepeal and savingsPunjab Pre-emption Actsecond appealreview petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court and its subsequent order dismissing a review application, which arose from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question involves the interpretation and applicability of sections 34 and 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 to pending pre-emption cases where judgments and decrees were passed prior to August 1, 1986. The Supreme Court held that the case was governed by subsection (2) of section 34 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 because the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was passed long before the target date of August 1, 1986, rendering section 35 inapplicable. The Court laid down the principle that where judgments and decrees under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 were passed before the 1st day of August 1986, further proceedings and appeals shall continue and be governed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed 1913 Act notwithstanding its repeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sections 34 and 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 apply to a pre-emption suit where decrees were passed before the first day of August, 1986?
  • Does section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 save a pre-emption suit where the claimed right of pre-emption is not available under the new enactment?
  • Are further proceedings and appeals in cases where judgments and decrees were passed before August 1, 1986 governed by the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sagheer Awan vs Secretary, Education And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1228 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs The State1997 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-16
  criminal appealbail on medical groundsillness and infirmityremand to high courtpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which disposed of the petitioner's bail application filed on the ground of illness while simultaneously directing a medical check-up by the hospital authorities without awaiting the medical report. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in disposing of the bail application prior to receiving the medical report regarding the accused's illness and infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was unjustifiable as the court ought to have waited for the medical report before passing an appropriate order on the bail application. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the order, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh hearing and disposal of the bail application in light of its observations. The key principle laid down is that where a bail application is founded on medical grounds, the court must await the medical report before finally disposing of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can dispose of a bail application based on medical grounds without awaiting the medical report?
  • Is an order disposing of a bail application without examining the requisite medical evidence justifiable?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate court when a bail petition is decided prematurely before the receipt of a medical report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar and 3 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. through District Collector, Haripur and 2 others1997 PLD Peshawar 90 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1997 MLD 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Rana vs State Bank of Pakistan Through Its Governor1997 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06
  foreign exchange regulationmoney changer licenseregulatory authoritystatutory interpretationeconomic reformsState Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the regulatory authority of the State Bank of Pakistan over money changers following the enactment of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992. The petitioner, a licensed money changer, contended that the 1992 Act granted individuals freedom to deal in foreign exchange, thereby overriding the State Bank's regulatory control under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 implicitly repealed the State Bank's authority to license and regulate money changers. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the liberalization of foreign exchange policy under the 1992 Act does not authorize individuals to conduct money-changing business without a license. The Court affirmed that the State Bank retains its statutory power to regulate financial institutions and dealers. The key principle established is that the freedom to hold and transfer foreign currency provided by the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 does not negate the regulatory framework governing the business of money changing as established by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 override the regulatory authority of the State Bank of Pakistan over money changers?
  • Is a license required to conduct the business of a money changer despite the liberalization of foreign exchange policies?
  • Does the freedom to hold and transfer foreign currency under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 exempt individuals from the licensing requirements of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1997 MLD 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan M/O1997 PLC (C.S.) 102 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Arshad and 4 others-s1997 P Cr. L J 866 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and another vs Muhammad Afsar and 62 othersPLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 28 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs The State1997 MLD 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1114 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs I. T.O. Central Circle-III1997 P.C.T.L.R. 144 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Collector, Okara and 3 others1997 PLD Lahore 680 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Khan vs Superintending Engineer, Scarp IV1997 PLC 274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Khan vs Superintending Engineer, Scarp IV Circle, Lahore and another1997 PLC 274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 991 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 10 others vs Executive Engineer, Store and Workshop Division, Mandi Bahauddin1997 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riasat, Set (Science) And. Others vs The Secretary of Education, N. W.F.P., Peshawar And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-29
  service tribunalgraded payrequisite qualificationtemporary appointmentfixed payconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of sixteen special leave petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, directed against the judgments of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The petitioners were initially appointed as Science Education Teachers (S.E.T.s) on a temporary basis and fixed pay while lacking the requisite basic qualifications, namely a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. They later acquired the qualification and claimed graded pay from their initial date of appointment, which the Service Tribunal and the respondent government denied, granting it only from the date they attained the B.Ed. qualification. The core legal question was whether an unqualified public servant appointed to a post on fixed pay is entitled to graded pay and increments from the date of initial appointment or from the date of acquiring the mandatory qualification. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that an employee who lacks the requisite qualification for a post cannot fully and competently discharge its duties so as to claim presumptive or graded pay, and is bound by the initial terms of appointment. The Court laid down the principle that unqualified appointees are only entitled to graded pay from the date they attain the prescribed minimum qualifications, affirming the binding authority of earlier Full Bench precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee appointed to a post without possessing the requisite basic qualifications is entitled to graded pay from the date of initial appointment?
  • Can a public servant claiming a higher pay scale challenge terms of appointment that expressly restrict them to a fixed pay until qualifications are met?
  • Does an unqualified officiating employee have the right to presumptive pay under service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riasat, S.E.T. (Science) And Other vs The Secretary of Education, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.)1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawgraded payeducational qualificationstemporary appointmentpresumptive payservice tribunalSET teachers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves sixteen special leave petitions filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal's decision regarding the entitlement of SET (Science) teachers to graded pay. The petitioners, initially appointed on a temporary basis with fixed pay, lacked the requisite B.Ed. qualification at the time of appointment. They subsequently sought graded pay from their initial date of appointment, rather than from the date they acquired the necessary qualifications. The Supreme Court examined whether an unqualified appointee could claim full graded pay. Relying on the precedent in Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan, the Court held that an employee lacking the prescribed qualifications for a post cannot claim full presumptive pay. Since the petitioners accepted appointment letters explicitly stipulating fixed pay due to their lack of qualifications, they were not entitled to graded pay until they attained the required B.Ed. qualification. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Service Tribunal’s decision that graded pay is only payable from the date of acquiring the requisite qualification.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees appointed on a temporary basis without requisite qualifications entitled to graded pay from the date of their initial appointment?
  • Does the acceptance of an appointment letter stipulating fixed pay preclude an employee from claiming graded pay for the same period?
  • Can an employee lacking the prescribed qualifications for a post claim full presumptive pay for the duties performed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehman And Another vs District Magistrate, Loralai And Other1997 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-18
  domicile certificatespecial leave to appealconstitutional petitionexigency of serviceadmission to professional collegecancellation of domicilepermanent residence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the cancellation of a domicile certificate. The petitioner, a government employee, had obtained a domicile certificate for Loralai District in 1971. His son subsequently applied for admission to Bolan Medical College based on this domicile. However, the District Magistrate cancelled the father's domicile certificate, citing a lack of permanent residence or interest in the district, which resulted in the denial of the son's admission. The High Court upheld the cancellation, reasoning that the petitioner was neither a resident nor a native of the area. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in failing to strike down the cancellation order. The Court specifically seeks to examine whether a domicile certificate remains valid when the holder resides outside the district solely due to the exigencies of government service rather than personal volition, and whether such residence constitutes a valid ground for cancelling a previously issued domicile certificate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a domicile certificate be cancelled solely on the ground that the holder resides outside the district due to government service exigencies?
  • Does the sale of a house in a district automatically negate the validity of a previously issued domicile certificate for that district?
  • Is a Selection Committee empowered to recall a recommendation for admission to a professional college before the final approval by the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Alias Gulai vs The State1997 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-27
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonyprompt FIRabscondencemedical evidencecriminal appealre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Rehmatullah and confirming his death sentence. The prosecution case was that the appellant fatally shot the deceased near Ziarat Bukhari Sharif over a land dispute. The trial court and the High Court both found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt based on prompt lodging of the First Information Report, reliable ocular testimony from eyewitnesses whose presence was established, corroborating medical evidence, established motive, and the appellant's five-year abscondence. The Supreme Court re-appraised the evidence and rejected the appellant's contentions regarding chance witnesses, discrepancies with medical evidence, and alleged incompetence of witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unexceptionable and dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and death sentence. The key principle laid down is that prompt registration of an F.I.R. combined with natural eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and prolonged abscondence, forms a sufficient basis to maintain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prompt lodging of an F.I.R. serve to corroborate the presence of eyewitnesses and negate the possibility of fabrication?
  • Whether long-term abscondence of an accused without plausible explanation constitutes strong corroborative evidence of guilt?
  • Can an eyewitness be classified as a chance witness if a natural and unchallenged explanation for his presence at the scene is established?
  • Does a minor discrepancy between medical opinion regarding time and eyewitness accounts outweigh consistent and direct ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raz Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and anothers1997 PLD Supreme Court 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-14
  service lawlimitationvoid orderdepartmental representationdate of knowledgecondonation of delayService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of an appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner, removed from service in 1979, instituted an appeal before the Service Tribunal in 1995, claiming that repetitive departmental representations kept the matter alive and that the original termination order was void ab initio, thus exempting it from limitation constraints. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether repeated departmental representations enlarge the statutory period of limitation, and whether a challenge to an allegedly void order is free from limitation constraints indefinitely. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that repeated departmental representations do not extend the prescribed period of limitation. The Court laid down the principle that even a void order must be challenged within the limitation period calculated from the date of actual knowledge, as equity and law do not assist those who sleep over their rights, requiring every day of delay to be justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeated submission of departmental representations extend or enlarge the prescribed statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can an allegedly void order or nullity be challenged at any time without regard to the law of limitation?
  • From what point (terminus a quo) is the period of limitation computed when challenging an order alleged to be a nullity or void?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raz Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-14
  limitationvoid orderrepeated representationscondonation of delaydate of knowledgeterminus a quoService Tribunaltermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his termination from service on grounds of limitation. The petitioner, whose services were terminated on 4th July 1979, had filed his appeal before the Service Tribunal on 14th September 1995 after making multiple departmental representations. The core legal questions pertained to whether repeated departmental representations extend the statutory period of limitation and whether an alleged void or incompetent order can be challenged without limitation constraints at any time. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that repeated representations do not enlarge the limitation period and that an aggrieved party must pursue remedies diligently and explain each day's delay. The Court further laid down that the right to challenge a void order is not unfettered; limitation against an alleged void order must be computed from the date the party factually gained knowledge of it. Finding the appeal hopelessly time-barred, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the making of repeated departmental representations enlarge or extend the prescribed statutory period of limitation for approaching a Service Tribunal?
  • Can a party challenge an alleged void order at any time without limitation constraints, or is limitation computed from the date of knowledge of such order?
  • Is an aggrieved person seeking redress beyond the prescribed limitation period under a legal obligation to explain and justify each day's delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Hafiz Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others Respoondnets1997 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1997 PLC (C.S.) 540 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid And 3 Others vs Murad Khan Through Legal Heirs1997 C L C1763 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1997 MLD 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1522 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-08
  review petitionsentence of deathIslami Tazeerati Qawaneen Nifaz ActQatl-e-AmdQisasmitigating circumstancesnormal sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir regarding the quantum of sentence for murder. The petitioner sought the review of the sentence of death imposed under section 3 of the Islami Tazeerati Qawaneen Nifaz Act, requesting conversion to life imprisonment based on alleged errors apparent on the face of the record, including unproven motive and questions surrounding the age of the deceased and the presence of provocation. The core legal question involved whether grounds existed to warrant a review of the death sentence and substitute it with life imprisonment. The Court held that where the offence of Qatl-e-Amd is proven under the applicable law, Qisas or the alternative punishment of death is the normal sentence, and lesser sentences require recognized mitigating circumstances. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record or sustainable mitigating circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the normal penalty for proved murder under the governing statutory framework is death, and reasons must be recorded for awarding a lesser sentence rather than for imposing the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the normal sentence for a proven case of murder under the Islami Tazeerati Qawaneen Nifaz Act is death?
  • Is it necessary for the Court to record reasons for awarding the sentence of death, or only when granting a lesser sentence?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive automatically entitle a convict to a lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of death?
  • What statutory provisions govern the imposition of Qisas and alternative punishments for Qatl-e-Amd under the Islami Tazeerati Qawaneen Nifaz Act?
  Read full judgment →