Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Gul Hasan Penhyar vs The State1997 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused who had been in custody for over seven years without the commencement of trial. The petitioner faced charges in three separate cases involving serious offences, including murder and assault on public servants. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inordinate delay in the trial, despite the heinous nature of the alleged offences and the statutory prohibition against bail in such cases. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the trial had not progressed despite specific directions from the High Court to conclude it within six months, and that the prosecution had failed to produce witnesses or the case record. The Court established the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental consideration in bail matters; where the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial for an inordinate period, particularly when the accused is not named in the F.I.R., the statutory prohibition against bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure must yield to the necessity of preventing indefinite incarceration without trial.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of bail in cases involving heinous offences?
- Can bail be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the statutory prohibition if the prosecution fails to produce witnesses or progress the trial for several years?
- Is the absence of the accused's name in the F.I.R. a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a bail application?
- Ghulam Muhammad through L.Rs, vs Muhammad Khan1997 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad alias Guloo and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mehmood vs The State1997 MLD 2402 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mehmood vs Hukam Khan And Other.1997 CLC 822 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1997 MLD 1629 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1782 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, sought the quashment of a criminal case against the applicant, an Assistant Excise Officer, who was implicated in a heroin recovery case based solely on the judicial confessions of co-accused. The applicant was shown as an absconder in the challan, later obtained pre-arrest bail, and his application under Section 265-K was rejected. The core legal question was whether a criminal case could proceed against an accused when the only evidence was the uncorroborated judicial confessions of co-accused, especially when police witnesses' statements contradicted these confessions. The High Court, noting the lack of independent corroborative evidence and the State Counsel's concession, held that such confessions are merely circumstantial evidence (Qarinah) and cannot form the sole basis for conviction under Islamic Jurisprudence and the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Allowing a case to continue when conviction is impossible constitutes an abuse of the court's process and does not secure the ends of justice. Consequently, the proceedings against the applicant were quashed.
Questions settled- Can a criminal case be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, if the available evidence cannot possibly lead to a conviction?
- Can the uncorroborated judicial confession of a co-accused be the sole basis for conviction against another accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession against another co-accused under Islamic Jurisprudence and the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does allowing a prosecution to continue when conviction is certain to fail constitute an abuse of the court's process?
- Is it necessary to find independent corroborative evidence against an accused when the only evidence is the judicial confession of a co-accused?
- Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Sarwar And 2 Other1997 CLC 1852 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain Soomro vs The State1997 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and 5 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and 3 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hamid Munshi vs Haji Siddiq And 2 Other1997 MLD 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs Meher Din Through Legal Heirs1997 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ghaus vs Muhammad Amin And Other1997 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a criminal case registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, along with sections 380 and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether bail was properly granted to the accused when the validity of the marriage between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was disputed by the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no irregularity in refusing to interfere with the grant of bail, noting that the question of the validity of the Nikah requires evidentiary determination by the trial court and that the adult female party had expressed her desire to accompany the accused. The Court affirmed that while criminal proceedings or bail considerations may intersect with the question of a valid Nikah, the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail under the circumstances of the case was sound. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether the validity of a marriage raised as a defense in a Zina case warrants the cancellation of bail granted to the accused?
- Can criminal proceedings be stayed pending the decision of a civil or family court regarding the validity of a Nikah?
- What are the options of a criminal trial court when a plea of a valid Nikah is raised during prosecution under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Ghulam Fatima And 12 Others vs Imdad Hussain1997 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff initially obtained a consent decree from a Civil Judge 3rd Class. Subsequently, the plaintiff successfully applied to have the plaint returned on the grounds that the court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, effectively undoing the consent decree. The suit was refiled in a higher court, leading to protracted litigation regarding limitation and the validity of the initial decree. The High Court eventually upheld the decree of the District Court, allowing the plaintiff further time to deposit the pre-emption money. The petitioners, successors-in-interest to the original vendee, challenged this, arguing that the initial consent decree was final, that the plaintiff could not unilaterally undo it, and that the suit stood dismissed upon the plaintiff's failure to deposit the money within the original timeframe. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether a party can undo a consent decree by challenging the court's jurisdiction after the fact, and whether the provisions of the Limitation Act were correctly applied to excuse the delay in the subsequent proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party who has consented to a decree subsequently challenge the court's pecuniary jurisdiction to have the plaint returned?
- Does a consent decree stand automatically dismissed if the pre-emption money is not deposited within the time specified in the decree?
- Is a party entitled to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 after voluntarily seeking the return of a plaint from a court they previously invoked?
- Ghulam Farid vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt or if the appellant’s defense of grave and sudden provocation—alleging he found the deceased in a compromising position with his wife—was credible. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution’s narrative regarding the deceased’s travel and the presence of eye-witnesses to be inconsistent and improbable based on the physical evidence. Conversely, the court found the appellant’s version of events to be more plausible. Relying on established precedents and Islamic injunctions regarding "Ghairat" (honor), the court held that the appellant’s actions, taken under grave and sudden provocation, did not constitute an offence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. This judgment reaffirms the principle that killings committed under specific circumstances of grave and sudden provocation, particularly involving marital infidelity, may be treated as non-punishable under the prevailing interpretation of Islamic law and relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's version of the occurrence is contradicted by physical evidence?
- Does the killing of a person found in a compromising position with one's wife constitute an offence under the law of grave and sudden provocation?
- To what extent can Islamic injunctions regarding 'Ghairat' be applied in determining the culpability of a person accused of Qatl-e-Amd?
- Is the testimony of a witness who cannot explain their presence at the scene of the crime considered reliable?
- Ghulam Fareed vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 952 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fareed and 2 otherss vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1477 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali vs The State And Another1997 SCMR 1411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, a public servant, under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for cheating the complainant. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. During the pendency of the petition before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise, and the complainant affirmed that his grievances were redressed. The core legal question was whether an offence involving a public servant who defrauded a complainant could be compounded based on a private settlement. The Supreme Court held that while the complainant had been compensated, the court was not inclined to compound the offence due to the petitioner's status as a public servant. However, considering the restitution made to the complainant, the Court exercised its discretion to convert the petition into an appeal and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, while also significantly reducing the fine. The judgment reinforces the principle that public interest and the nature of the offence committed by a public servant may preclude the compounding of criminal charges, even where a private compromise has been reached.
Questions settled- Can an offence committed by a public servant involving fraud be compounded solely on the basis of a private compromise with the complainant?
- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone despite the nature of the offence?
- Is a compromise between parties sufficient grounds to set aside a conviction for an offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ghulam Akbar vs Deputy Commissioner, Dadu and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Messrs Apex International and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 403 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas and 3 others vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
- Ghilaf Gul vs Commissioner of Income Tax_Wealth Tax, Zone-B, Peshawar and 4 others1997 PTD 849 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the legality of income tax deduction under sections 50(2-A) and 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 from the petitioner's bank account situated in a tribal area. The core legal question was whether provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 could be lawfully applied to deduct withholding tax from bank branches located in tribal areas without a directive issued under Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Peshawar High Court held that the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 had not been extended to the tribal areas in accordance with Article 247 of the Constitution, making the impugned tax deductions unconstitutional and without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the deductions illegal. The court also noted that the respondent bank had reversed the withholding tax entries and re-credited the deducted amounts to the petitioner's account.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 applicable to bank branches located in tribal areas without an extension under Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether income tax can be lawfully deducted from bank accounts maintained within tribal areas where the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 has not been extended?
- Ghazanfar Ali vs The State1997 MLD 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Ghazanfar Ali Gul vs Ch. Tajammal Hussain And Other1997 CLC 1628 · Election Tribunal · 1997-01-06Read full judgment →
- Ghani Ur Rehman vs Pir Haider Ali Shah And 4 Other1997 CLC 1092 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenged an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan directing a recount of votes under section 39(6)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, following the official notification of the returned candidate. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission retains jurisdiction to order a vote recount after the issuance of the Gazette Notification declaring a candidate returned, or whether it becomes functus officio save for powers under section 103-AA to declare an election void upon proof of grave illegalities. The Court held that once a candidate is officially notified as returned, the Election Commission's general power to order a recount ceases, and it becomes functus officio with respect to mere recounting applications; such matters must thereafter be agitated through an election petition before an Election Tribunal. The Court established that an application merely seeking a recount does not attract the stringent pre-conditions of section 103-AA, which requires a finding of grave illegalities and a declaration that the election is void.
Questions settled- Whether the Election Commission can order a recount of votes after the issuance of the official Gazette Notification declaring a returned candidate?
- Does an application seeking merely a recount of votes fall within the ambit of section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a candidate aggrieved by vote counting after the notification of the returned candidate has been published?
- Ghafoor Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 944 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
- General Managers Layyah Sugar Mills, Layyah vs Saleem Pervaiz1997PLC 111 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- General Manager, Production, K.S.B. Pumps Company, Ltd., Attock vs Muhammad Riaz1997 PLC 261 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore And Another vs Fazal Elahi1997 PLC 646 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-05-03Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways And Others vs Federal Service1997 SCMR 1342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal expunged an adverse annual confidential report for the period from 1-1-1994 to 31-12-1994 characterizing the respondent as an unwilling worker, allegedly done without mandatory pre-counselling under the rules. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the expungement of the adverse entry by the Service Tribunal was uncalled for given that fourteen other adverse reports containing advice for improvement had allegedly been issued on the same grounds, though not produced before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the necessity of pre-counselling and the existence of multiple adverse reports. The holding of the Court is that leave to appeal is granted to examine whether the Service Tribunal's interference with the adverse entry was legally justified under the circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether pre-counselling is a mandatory requirement under the rules before recording an adverse annual confidential report?
- Can the Service Tribunal expunge an adverse entry on the ground of lack of pre-counselling when multiple other adverse reports were issued?
- Is the non-production of other adverse reports before the Service Tribunal fatal to the department's case regarding an employee's performance?
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways And Other vs Federal Service1997 PLC (C. S.) 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Service Tribunal whereby an adverse annual confidential report of respondent No.2 for the period from 1-1-1994 to 31-12-1994, characterizing him as an unwilling worker, was expunged due to the lack of pre-counselling as required under the rules. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the expungement of the adverse entry was uncalled for when fourteen other adverse reports were allegedly issued against the respondent with advice to improve, which were not produced before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the necessity of pre-counselling and the existence of multiple adverse reports. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted to examine whether the Service Tribunal erred in expunging adverse entries where department contentions regarding prior notice and multiple adverse reports require deeper examination.
Questions settled- Whether the expungement of an adverse annual confidential report by the Service Tribunal is justified when pre-counselling was allegedly not required due to multiple similar adverse reports?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the department contends that other adverse reports issued against an employee were not considered by the Service Tribunal?
- General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Lahore vs Malik1997 PLC 24 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Lahore vs Malik1997 PLC 24 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Layyah Sugar Mills, Layyah vs Saleem Per Vaiz1997 PLC 111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a grievance petition filed by an employee against the Layyah Sugar Mills, challenging his termination of service. The core legal questions were whether the employee’s termination, purportedly due to reorganization, was bona fide, and whether the employer could unilaterally terminate services contrary to statutory protections. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the plea of reorganization was a fictitious device used to victimize the employee for his trade union activities, noting that the employer failed to prove financial necessity or legitimate retrenchment. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed that the employee was governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, rather than unilateral terms set by the employer. The court held that termination simpliciter is impermissible and that an employee cannot be ousted based on the whims of management. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower court's decision, ordering the employee's reinstatement with full back benefits, finding the termination to be mala fide and legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Can an employer terminate an employee's services based solely on the plea of reorganization without evidence of financial crisis or bona fide necessity?
- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, override unilateral terms and conditions of service set by an employer?
- Is an employee entitled to reinstatement with back benefits if their termination is found to be a result of victimization for trade union activities?
- Can an employer justify the retrenchment of a senior employee while retaining a junior employee in the same capacity?
- General Manager, Hyesons Sugar Mills, Khanpur vs Sardar Ahmad1997 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Bambino Food Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Dera Ghazi1997 PLC 371 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-26Read full judgment →
- General Manager (a&P) Pakistan Steel Through Incharge vs Muhammad1997 PLC 119 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
- Garden Silk Weaving Factory vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 445 · Gujarat High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
- Ganga Bai and another vs State of Tamil Nadu1997 PTD 1380 · Madras High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Gandaf Steel Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 SCMR 1669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns review petitions filed against a majority judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding electricity tariff concessions. The core legal question was whether consumers entitled to a 50% concession on electricity tariffs were also entitled to the same concession on 'surcharge' and 'additional surcharge' levied by WAPDA, and whether this applied to consumers previously placed on a 'negative list'. The Court held that since surcharges are integral components of the electricity tariff, the 50% concession must logically extend to these charges. The Court identified an error apparent on the face of the record in paragraph 71 of its previous judgment, which had been restrictively interpreted by WAPDA. Consequently, the Court clarified that the concession applies to all consumers entitled to the tariff reduction, including those included in the negative list up to the date that list became operational. The principle laid down is that where surcharges are legally deemed part of the tariff, any concession applicable to the base tariff must inherently apply to those surcharges as well.
Questions settled- Are surcharge and additional surcharge considered part of the electricity tariff for the purpose of calculating concessions?
- Does a 50% concession on electricity tariffs extend to surcharges and additional surcharges?
- Does the concession on electricity surcharges apply to consumers included in the negative list?
- G.L. Didwania and another vs Income-Tax Officer and another1997 PTD 1852 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
- Furqan Ahmad Khan vs Abdur Rehman And Other1997 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a revision petition regarding a pre-emption suit. The dispute arose when the original owners entered into an agreement to sell land with the petitioner's father (respondent No. 2). Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed a pre-emption suit against respondent No. 2, treating the agreement to sell as a completed sale. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioner purchased the land from the original owners through respondent No. 2, acting as their attorney. The petitioner was impleaded as a defendant in the pre-emption suit, which was decreed against him, with subsequent appeals and revisions being dismissed. The core legal question is whether an agreement to sell constitutes a sale sufficient to trigger a right of pre-emption, and whether the petitioner's subsequent purchase was correctly linked to that initial agreement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the nature of the transaction and the alleged misreading of evidence by lower courts require further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell constitute a sale sufficient to trigger a right of pre-emption?
- Can a transaction be considered a sale if only possession and partial payment have occurred?
- Does the purchase of property during the pendency of a pre-emption suit against an agreement-to-sell holder constitute a valid transfer?
- Fouzia Begum vs Karachi Transport Corporation And Another1997 MLD 2787 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
- Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Charsadda vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1997 PTD 2303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerned a claim for sales tax exemption under SRO 580(1)/91, dated 27-6-1991, by the appellant, who purchased the assets of a liquidated company. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s installation of new machinery and production of a specific paper product constituted the 'setting up' of a new industry, thereby qualifying for tax incentives. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption. The court found that documentary evidence, specifically the appellant's own correspondence, demonstrated that the production of the product in question had commenced prior to the installation of the new machinery, having been achieved through the balancing, modernization, and replacement (BMR) of existing facilities. Consequently, the court ruled that the appellant’s operation was a continuation of the existing establishment rather than a new, integrated industrial unit. The key principle laid down is that for tax exemption purposes, the mere addition of machinery or expansion within an existing facility does not qualify as 'setting up' a new industry unless it creates a distinct, independent manufacturing unit.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of assets of a liquidated company through a court auction automatically constitute the continuation of the previous company's business?
- Can a taxpayer claim sales tax exemption for a 'new industry' if the product was already being manufactured using existing facilities prior to the installation of new machinery?
- Does the installation of new machinery for balancing, modernization, and replacement (BMR) within an existing factory qualify as 'setting up' a new industry for tax exemption purposes?
- Can an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court bench be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the lower courts?
- Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., CH Arsadda vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant purchased the assets of a liquidated paper corporation in a court-supervised auction and restarted the mill under a new name. The appellant subsequently imported new machinery to produce 'Extensible Sack Kraft Paper (Clu Pak)' and sought sales tax exemption under Notification S.R.O. 580(1)/91, which granted tax incentives for new industries set up in backward areas. The revenue authorities rejected the claim, asserting that the factory was an old establishment and that the new product was manufactured prior to the installation of the imported machinery. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the purchase of a liquidated company's assets in a court sale does not constitute a continuation of the old business but rather the establishment of a new legal entity, the appellant was not entitled to the exemption. The court observed that the production of the new paper product had commenced prior to the installation of the new machinery through balancing, modernization, and replacement of the existing plant. Consequently, the addition did not constitute the 'setting up' of a new identifiable industry under the notification.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of a liquidated company's assets in a court-supervised auction constitute a continuation of the old business or the establishment of a new legal entity?
- Can an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the initial rounds of litigation?
- Does the production of a new item through the balancing, modernization, and replacement of an existing plant qualify as setting up a new industry for tax exemption purposes?
- Fida Muhammad Sanai vs Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad and 2 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion to the post of Accountant (BPS-16) effective from 1983. The petitioner sought to re-agitate seniority issues previously decided against him in multiple rounds of litigation, including a Supreme Court judgment in the Muhammad Umer Malik case. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner could re-litigate settled seniority matters and whether his appeal was maintainable despite failing to exhaust departmental remedies or implead the affected junior official. The Supreme Court held that the seniority dispute was settled and could not be re-agitated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, as the petitioner failed to file a departmental representation against the specific promotion order of his junior. Additionally, the Court noted that the appeal was improperly constituted because the affected promotee was not impleaded as a respondent. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant re-agitate a seniority issue that has already been settled by a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable if the petitioner fails to file a departmental appeal against the specific impugned order?
- Is an appeal challenging the promotion of a junior maintainable if the affected junior is not impleaded as a respondent?
- Fida Muhammad And 3 Others vs All Residents of Rumboor Valley1997 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment affirming a decree in a suit filed in a representative capacity regarding forest rights in Rumboor Valley. The respondents, as residents of Rumboor Valley, sought a declaration of their exclusive rights to forest usufruct and 60% timber royalty, alongside a permanent injunction against the appellants, who claimed joint rights. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with representative suit requirements, and whether the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction under the Distribution of Property (Chitral) Regulation 1974. The Supreme Court held that the procedural requirements of Order I, Rule 8 were substantially complied with, as notice was served and no objections were raised by the represented parties during the trial. Furthermore, the Court held that the repeal of the 1974 Regulation rendered the jurisdictional objection moot. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondents' exclusive rights, noting the appellants' failure to prove their claims through admissible evidence. The principle laid down is that substantial compliance with Order I, Rule 8 suffices to validate a representative suit where no prejudice is shown.
Questions settled- Does the mere omission to pass a formal order granting permission under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vitiate a decree if notice was otherwise served?
- Can a suit filed in a representative capacity be challenged on procedural grounds if no objection was raised by the represented parties during the trial?
- Does the repeal of a regulation during the pendency of litigation render a jurisdictional bar based on that regulation ineffective?
- Federation Of Pakistan, Through, Secretary Finanace, Islamabad And Another vs Malik Mumtaz Hussain And OtherPTCL 1997 CL. 71 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a criminal revision in which the High Court had set aside a trial court's order refusing to accept a police report recommending the cancellation of a criminal case and the discharge of the accused. Gold had been recovered on suspicion of being smuggled under the Customs Act 1969, but the investigating officer recommended cancellation. The trial court declined and ordered the submission of a challan, which the High Court reversed. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's order taking cognizance and directing the cancellation of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by prematurely evaluating the merits of the case at the pre-trial stage and improperly discarding the trial court's order, which was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The Supreme Court established that a report by an investigating officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not binding on a magistrate, who may take cognizance under Section 190 despite a recommendation for cancellation, and revisional courts should not lightly interfere with such interlocutory orders.
Questions settled- Is a police report recommending the cancellation of a case binding on the trial court?
- Can a magistrate take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite an investigating officer's recommendation to discharge the accused?
- Was the High Court justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to evaluate merits and cancel a case before the commencement of trial?
- Haji Muhammad Hanif vs Mohsin Ali1997 MLD 2754 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan, Chambers of Commerce and Industry1997 PLC 741 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs Niaz Ahmad1997 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal with a delay of 57 days. The petitioner, the Federation of Pakistan, sought condonation of this delay, citing internal administrative processing and discussions between the Finance Division, Establishment Division, and the Military Accountant-General as the cause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this application, reaffirming the established legal principle that the Government cannot be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding the law of limitation. The Court held that administrative delays caused by inter-departmental consultations do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. Emphasizing that each day of delay must be properly and satisfactorily explained, the Court noted that the Government, possessing superior resources and facilities compared to private litigants, must strictly adhere to statutory limitation periods. Consequently, as the delay remained unexplained and the grounds provided were vague and insufficient, the Court dismissed the petition as time-barred.
Questions settled- Can administrative delay caused by inter-departmental consultations be accepted as a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Is the Government entitled to preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
- What is the standard required for explaining each day of delay in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Narcotics Control Division, Ministry Of Interior And Narcotics Control, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another vs Noor Hussain Pathan1997 PLC (C. S.) 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the appeal of respondent Noor Hussain Pathan and reinstated him in service with back benefits after he was dismissed for allegedly aiding and abetting the escape of a smuggler in his custody. The core legal question is whether the Federal Service Tribunal's decision reinstating the respondent was sustainable in law and based on a proper and complete appraisement of the entire record, including previous inquiry reports, statements, and the First Information Report. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal properly evaluated the entire record and whether the authorised officer provided cogent reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry findings. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals must thoroughly appraise the entire record and evidence before setting aside departmental disciplinary actions and arriving at a decision.
Questions settled- Whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law when passed without proper appraisement of the entire record?
- Can an authorised officer disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer by recording cogent reasons?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in relying on previous inquiry reports without considering the statements of witnesses and the accused on oath?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry OfEducation, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And 2 Others vs Muhammad Aslam1997 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal via leave of the Supreme Court, which had allowed the respondent's appeal regarding the appointment and transfer to the post of Deputy Director (B-18). The core legal questions involved whether proper procedure was followed by the Tribunal, specifically concerning the non-joinder of a necessary party (the appointee whose transfer was challenged) and the alleged denial of the opportunity for the appellants to file a written statement. The Supreme Court held that although the appointee was a necessary party, his active participation in the Tribunal proceedings and subsequent transfer elsewhere rendered the non-joinder non-fatal to the maintainability of the appeal, and further found that the written statement was indeed filed and no procedural illegality occurred. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that non-joinder of a party does not warrant dismissal where the affected party had notice and participated, and procedural fairness was substantially observed.
Questions settled- Whether non-joinder of a necessary party is fatal to the maintainability of an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does participation and presence of an affected person in tribunal proceedings cure the defect of formal non-joinder?
- Whether the appellants were denied the opportunity to file a written statement before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance vs Niaz1997 PLC (C. S.) 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which was barred by 57 days. The core legal question concerns whether the pendency of a file and inter-departmental consultation between the Finance Division, Establishment Division, and the Military Accountant-General constitutes a sufficient and valid ground for the condonation of delay. Holding that the government cannot claim a different standard of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant and that each day's delay must be properly and satisfactorily explained, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that inter-departmental correspondence and bureaucratic delay do not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay under the law of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether inter-departmental correspondence and discussion constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Can the Government claim a different standard of treatment regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
- Is each day's delay required to be properly and satisfactorily explained in an application for condonation of delay?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 2 Others vs Muhammad Rafique And Other Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 8 Other1997 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly allowed service appeals filed by the respondents. The respondents were appointed directly as Vice-Principals on a regular basis in Islamabad Model Colleges and challenged subsequent service rules requiring them to undergo re-selection through the Federal Public Service Commission and affecting their seniority. The Service Tribunal declared Rule 5 of the notification dated 15-11-1993 prospective in operation, holding that it could not be applied retrospectively to detrimentally affect civil servants appointed regularly years prior. The core legal question was whether newly introduced service rules requiring re-selection and affecting settled terms of conditions could be applied retrospectively to existing regular employees. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's interpretation making Rule 5 prospective in operation and inoperative to the extent of retrospective application suffered from no infirmity. The petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that service rules cannot operate retrospectively to the detriment of existing employees.
Questions settled- Can service rules be applied retrospectively to the detriment of civil servants appointed on a regular basis prior to the framing of such rules?
- Whether a rule requiring existing regular employees to undergo re-selection through the Federal Public Service Commission can operate retrospectively?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the prospective or retrospective operation of service rules affecting civil servants?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 21997 PLC (C.S.) 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the withdrawal of a Selection Grade (B-16) previously granted to a Stenographer. The core legal question was whether the Director-General of the F.I.A. possessed the authority to review and recall a prior order granting a Selection Grade after the matter had already been adjudicated by the Service Tribunal in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the Departmental Promotion Committee had previously cleared the respondent for the Selection Grade. When seniors challenged this, the Tribunal had already dismissed their appeals, confirming the propriety of the promotion process, and that decision had attained finality. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Director-General could not unilaterally re-open the issue or recall the promotion order once the dispute had been finally resolved by the Tribunal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the department was precluded from re-litigating a settled matter, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a departmental authority unilaterally review and recall a promotion order after the underlying dispute has been adjudicated and finalized by the Service Tribunal?
- Does the principle of finality of judicial decisions prevent a department from re-opening a service matter already decided by the Service Tribunal?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division And 21997 PLC (C.S.) 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order by the Director-General, F.I.A. The Director-General had initially granted a Selection Grade (B-16) to the respondent, a Stenographer, but subsequently recalled this order following representations from senior employees, citing Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The core legal question was whether the Departmental authority could unilaterally review and withdraw a previously granted promotion order after the underlying dispute regarding seniority and promotion eligibility had already been adjudicated and finalized by the Service Tribunal in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the dispute concerning the respondent's entitlement to the Selection Grade had already been resolved in earlier appeals that attained finality. The Court held that once a matter has been finally adjudicated by a competent forum, the Department cannot re-open the issue or recall a promotion order under the guise of review, as the principle of finality of litigation precludes such administrative actions.
Questions settled- Can a departmental authority unilaterally recall a promotion order after the underlying dispute regarding seniority has been adjudicated by the Service Tribunal?
- Does the principle of finality of litigation prevent a department from re-opening a promotion case that has already been decided by the Service Tribunal?
- Is the power of review under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 applicable when the subject matter has already attained finality through judicial adjudication?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Finance, Islamabad And Another vs Malik Mumtaz Hussain And 4 Other1997 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by the Federation of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a criminal revision, cancelled a criminal case, and ordered the return of recovered gold to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in law to interfere with the trial court's order declining a police recommendation to cancel the First Information Report and directing the submission of a challan. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an investigating officer's report recommending cancellation under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not binding on the trial court, which possesses the discretion to take cognizance under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in evaluating the merits of the case and interfering in the revisional jurisdiction under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the trial court's reasons were neither perverse, fanciful, nor arbitrary, and the trial had not yet commenced. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court.
Questions settled- Is a report submitted by an Investigating Officer under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure binding on the trial court?
- Can a High Court interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a trial court's order taking cognizance of a case based on police challan?
- Whether a trial court can decline a police recommendation for the cancellation of a First Information Report and direct the submission of a challan?
- Federal Public Service Commission Through Chairman vs Ishtiaq Ahmed1997 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Federal Land Commission Federal Land Commission vs Sardar1997 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected petitions for leave to appeal arising from orders passed by the Lahore High Court, which had accepted writ petitions filed against the orders of the Member, Federal Land Commission. The core legal questions involved the scope of suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) and the protection afforded to certain alienations under the proviso to paragraph 7(b) of the Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Federal Land Commission failed to exercise lawful authority by passing mechanical orders without examining the validity of the earlier orders passed by the Land Commissioner and by ignoring the statutory immunity granted to alienations made in favour of legal heirs and unmarried sisters under the second proviso to paragraph 7(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Furthermore, the Court established that a transaction of sale attested as a mutation is completed on the date of attestation, and the mere failure to carry the entry into the record of rights does not render the sale invalid.
Questions settled- Whether the Member, Federal Land Commission is required to examine the validity of the Land Commissioner's earlier orders while exercising revisional jurisdiction under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Are alienations and transfers of land made by a declarant in favour of his legal heirs immune from scrutiny by the Land Reforms Authorities under the second proviso to paragraph 7(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does the mere failure to carry a mutation entry into the record of rights render an attested sale invalid under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Fazla vs Mehr Din And 2 Other1997 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged a High Court judgment that had modified a decree in his favor regarding a land dispute. The appellant claimed ownership and possession of land based on an unregistered receipt/contract of sale, alleging he had constructed a house thereon. The trial and appellate courts initially decreed the suit, applying the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court, however, held that the document was a sale deed requiring registration, thus rendering Section 53-A inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted leave to determine if the High Court was justified in setting aside the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court held that the 1962 amendment to Section 50 of the Registration Act, specifically the added provisos, extends protection to persons in possession under unregistered documents, regardless of whether the document is an agreement or a contract of sale. The Court affirmed that provided the conditions of Section 53-A are met, an unregistered document can protect a transferee's possession. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Does the first proviso to Section 50(1) of the Registration Act allow a person in possession under an unregistered document to claim the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
- Can an unregistered document, which otherwise requires registration, be used to protect a transferee's possession under the doctrine of part performance?
- Does the amendment to Section 50 of the Registration Act distinguish between an agreement for sale and a contract of sale regarding the protection of possession?
- Fazalur Rehman Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. Batul And Other1997 MLD 880 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal Rehmat vs Naqshay And Other1997 SCMR 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 23-4-1995, whereby the accused-respondents were granted post-arrest bail in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to under-trial prisoners where the trial has been delayed due to uncertainty of the forum resulting from a judgment on PATA Regulations, and whether such discretionary relief warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that despite the accused not having completed the statutory period of two years of incarceration by the time bail was granted by the High Court, leave to appeal should be declined and the petition dismissed on the ground that the trial had still not concluded since their release. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial, coupled with systemic delays such as uncertainty of forum, constitutes a valid ground for declining interference with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted to under-trial prisoners when the trial is delayed due to uncertainty of the forum?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail when the trial has not concluded after a prolonged period?
- Fazal Muhammad Chaudhari vs Ch. Khadim Hussain And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking contempt proceedings against government functionaries. The petitioners alleged that the respondents committed intentional contempt of court by passing orders in favor of respondent No. 1 in violation of a subsequent two-judge Bench order of the Supreme Court that had refused leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether government officials commit contempt of court when they act in accordance with an earlier decision of a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court that directly conflicts with a later decision rendered by a smaller Bench. The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, holding that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court, the judgment of the larger Bench prevails over that of the smaller Bench. Consequently, the court ruled that government functionaries committed no contempt by implementing the binding decision of the larger five-judge Bench.
Questions settled- Which decision prevails when there is a conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court delivered by Benches of different numerical strengths?
- Does a government official commit contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution by implementing a decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court that conflicts with a subsequent order of a smaller Bench?
- Can a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court overrule or render ineffective a final decision rendered by a larger Bench of the same court?
- Fazal Karim vs Abdul Manaf And Another1997 MLD 2867 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant seeking the cancellation of a gift deed executed by him in favor of his son, and a subsequent gift deed executed by the son in favor of his wife, on the grounds of non-delivery of possession. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant failed to prove non-delivery of possession and that the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined whether the lower courts had misread the evidence regarding possession and limitation. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, specifically noting that the plaintiff's own witness contradicted the Khasra-Girdawari entries and that the suit was governed by the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in appellate jurisdiction unless they are erroneous or based on misreading of evidence, which was not the case here. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a suit for cancellation of a gift deed governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can the High Court disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court?
- Does the failure of a donee to appear in court to testify regarding the delivery of possession automatically invalidate a gift deed?
- Fazal Ghani and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1510 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elahi vs Gul Khan Ahmed Qureshi1997 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioner under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, alleging default in rent payment for a shop. The petitioner contended that due to a dispute regarding ownership of the premises between the respondent and a previous landlady, he had deposited rent in court rather than paying it directly to the respondent. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner had indeed committed default from March 1992 and ordered his eviction, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court of Sindh. The Supreme Court examined whether the unilateral decision of the tenant to deposit rent in court, despite having previously acknowledged the respondent as the landlord, constituted a wilful default. The Court held that the petitioner's actions, particularly after receiving notice under the Ordinance, were intended to harass the landlord and amounted to defiance in payment. Finding no legal error or misappreciation of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that such conduct justifies an eviction order.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's unilateral decision to deposit rent in court, despite prior recognition of the landlord, constitute wilful default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a tenant avoid an eviction order for non-payment of rent by depositing rent in court during a dispute over ownership?
- Does the act of shifting rent payments to court after receiving a notice under Section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 amount to defiance of the landlord?
- Fazal Dad vs Mst. Sakina Bibi And Another1997 MLD 2861 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal Ali Baig vs Sultan Mahmood Ali Khan,1997 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmed Alias Faji vs The State1997 MLD 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and the suspicious conduct of key witnesses, despite the prosecution's argument that bail should be denied because the trial had commenced. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the case against him required further inquiry due to the complainant's shifting narrative and the unexplained disappearance and conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the commencement of a trial does not render the provisions of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inoperative. If an accused is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of the case, it cannot be withheld merely because the trial has begun, as the statutory right to bail under section 497(2) is not subordinate to judicial practice.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a trial render the provisions of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inoperative?
- Can bail be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the case requires further inquiry?
- Is a long-standing judicial practice sufficient to override the statutory right to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Fauqual Bashar vs The State1997 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of an application seeking a medical inquiry into the mental state of an accused person facing a murder trial. The appellant, the accused's brother, contended that the accused suffered from schizophrenia and was incapable of understanding trial proceedings, relying on medical documentation. The trial court and the High Court rejected the plea, noting the accused's own denial of insanity and the defense counsel's assertion of the accused's competence. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are mandatory. The Court clarified that when a plea of insanity is raised with supporting material, the trial court is obligated to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the accused's capacity to make a defense. The Court emphasized that the trial judge cannot rely solely on the accused's own denial or the defense counsel's opinion when substantial documentary evidence suggests potential mental unsoundness. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry into the accused's mental capacity in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Is a trial court obligated to conduct a medical inquiry when a plea of insanity is raised with supporting evidence?
- Can a trial court rely solely on an accused's denial of insanity to refuse a request for a mental health examination?
- Are the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandatory for determining an accused's capacity to stand trial?
- Does the opinion of a defense counsel regarding an accused's mental state supersede documentary evidence of prior psychiatric treatment?
- Fauji Sugar Mills Employees Union, Hyderabad vs Fauji Sugar Mills1997 PLC 121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
- Fauji Oil Terminal and Distribution Co. Ltd., Employees Union (Regd.)1997 PLC 547 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
- Fathoo Alias Fateh Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 1449 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
- Fateh Ali vs Province of Balochistan Through Secretary, Health And Other1997 SCMR 1687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing the appellant's constitution petition. The appellant had sought admission to the first year MBBS class at Bolan Medical College for the 1991-92 academic session against reserved seats as a local of Jafarabad district. His application was rejected by the Selection Committee because he had completed his Matriculation and F.Sc. education outside Baluchistan at a Public School in Hyderabad, contrary to Paragraph 29 of the College Prospectus. The core legal question was whether the desire of parents to provide better education elsewhere constitutes a 'cogent reason' for exemption under Paragraph 29 of the Prospectus. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a ground like 'better education' that could have been avoided does not qualify as a cogent reason for studying outside the province, as the requirement aims to ensure candidates competing inter se have a similar educational background and bona fide domicile. The Court further noted that the appeal had lost efficacy due to the passage of time.
Questions settled- Does the desire of parents to provide better education outside the province constitute a cogent reason for exemption under Paragraph 29 of the Bolan Medical College Prospectus?
- What is the underlying object of requiring candidates to pass Matriculation and Intermediate examinations from within the Province of Baluchistan for college admissions?
- Can a ground that could have been avoided by a candidate or their parents be treated as a cogent reason for studying outside Baluchistan?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the peculiar circumstances of a case warrant dismissal?
- Fateh Ali And Another vs The State1997 MLD 2235 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
- Faryad Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
- Farrukh Salim vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed against an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a constitutional petition seeking the quashment of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered against the appellant for offences under sections 324, 353, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question before the court was whether an F.I.R. can be quashed through a constitutional petition when it discloses the commission of offences and when the petitioner has several adequate alternate remedies available under the law. The Lahore High Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction and that the availability of comprehensive alternate remedies—such as approaching investigating officers, higher police authorities, seeking discharge before a magistrate, cancellation under police rules, or applying for acquittal or discharge during trial—bars the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction for quashing an F.I.R. The court laid down the principle that the High Court will not ordinarily interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash an F.I.R. involving factual controversies when efficacious alternate remedies are provided within the criminal justice system.
Questions settled- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an F.I.R.?
- Whether an accused person invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge an F.I.R. can be regarded as having no adequate alternate remedy?
- What are the available alternate remedies for an accused seeking relief against a criminal investigation or F.I.R. under Pakistani law?
- Does the existence of remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for quashing an F.I.R.?
- Farrukh Hussain Mirza vs Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore And Another1997 P'L C (C. S.) 60 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding disciplinary penalties imposed upon him. The petitioner, a Medical Officer, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct. Following an initial enquiry, the government initiated a de novo enquiry, which subsequently stalled. The authorities then reverted to the original enquiry report to impose a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment and restricted the petitioner's future postings. The core legal questions involve whether the government could lawfully revert to an initial enquiry report after deciding to hold a de novo enquiry, and whether the Service Tribunal was properly constituted given a vacancy and a split verdict between the Chairman and the sole Member. The Supreme Court observed that these contentions require deeper consideration regarding administrative procedure and the statutory composition of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the procedural deviations and the Tribunal's split decision warrant judicial intervention, thereby setting the stage for a detailed review of the disciplinary process and Tribunal adjudication.
Questions settled- Can departmental authorities revert to an initial enquiry report after deciding to hold a de novo enquiry?
- Is a Service Tribunal properly constituted to dismiss an appeal when there is a split verdict between the Chairman and the only other Member?
- Does a vacancy in the office of a Member of the Service Tribunal affect the validity of its proceedings?
- Farooq Welfare Centre, Rawalpindi Through Chairman vs Pakistan1997 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered a petition filed by Farooq Welfare Centre, Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the petition pertained to the infringement of Fundamental Rights as enumerated in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution. The Court held that the petition did not relate to any such infringement and, consequently, dismissed it. The key principle laid down was that for a petition to be maintainable on grounds of Fundamental Rights, it must directly involve their infringement. Despite the dismissal, the Court issued an observation, suggesting that Television Authorities should not be prevented from performing the public service of tracing lost children, even though the petition itself was not found to be within the ambit of Fundamental Rights.
Questions settled- Is a petition maintainable under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution if it does not relate to the infringement of Fundamental Rights?
- Can the Supreme Court, while dismissing a petition, issue an observation regarding public service?
- Farooq Ahmad and others vs Deputy Director, Education (Colleges), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C.S.) 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
- Farooq Ahmad And Other vs Deputy Director, Education (Colleges), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C.S.) 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
- Farooq Ahmad and 9 others vs Amir Ahmad Ansari1997 PLD Lahore 403 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
- Farman Ali vs The State1997 MLD 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-17Read full judgment →
- Farhan Iqbal vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1860 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-06Read full judgment →
- Fareeda vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Faqir Khan And Others vs Niamatullah1997 CLC 477 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
- Faqir Hussain vs Muhammad Shakeel And 2 Other1997 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court and acquitted the respondents of the murder charge. The prosecution case was that the respondents had called the deceased outside, where a quarrel ensued, and one of the respondents fired a pistol shot hitting the deceased, resulting in his death. The trial court had convicted the accused under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and the other to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused, prompting the complainant to seek leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether minor discrepancies and expert evidence were rightly allowed by the High Court to outweigh prompt reporting, direct eyewitness testimony, and broad daylight occurrence for setting aside a conviction. The Supreme Court granted leave for reappraisal of the evidence and issued bailable warrants against the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies and expert evidence should prevail over direct eyewitness testimony in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise the evidence upon a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal by the High Court?
- Faqir Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1453 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the dying declaration and the testimony of the sole eyewitness. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the dying declaration unreliable, as medical evidence indicated the deceased was in a state of shock and semi-unconscious at the time the statement was allegedly recorded, rendering him incapable of coherent communication. Furthermore, the court identified the eyewitness as a chance witness whose testimony lacked corroboration and contradicted medical findings regarding the number of shots fired. The court reaffirmed that while motive and abscondence are relevant, they serve only as corroborative evidence and cannot sustain a conviction absent reliable primary proof. It emphasized that procedural safeguards for recording dying declarations, though not strictly mandatory, are essential to prevent fabrication. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of conviction if the declarant's medical condition renders them incapable of making a coherent statement?
- Does the failure to follow procedural rules for recording a dying declaration render the statement unreliable?
- Can motive and abscondence sustain a criminal conviction in the absence of reliable primary evidence?
- Is the testimony of a related witness who lacks a plausible explanation for their presence at the scene sufficient to support a conviction?
- Falak Sher vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
- Faizur Rahman vs Rahman Ud Din Alias Mirza And Other1997 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a review petition concerning an ex parte decree for possession through pre-emption. The underlying suit was originally decreed by an Assistant Collector under the PATA Regulation. Subsequently, the respondent successfully applied to set aside the ex parte decree. This order was challenged in a writ petition on the grounds that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction following a Supreme Court judgment declaring the PATA Regulation invalid. During the writ petition proceedings, the parties reached a consensus to set aside the ex parte decree subject to the respondent paying costs of Rs.1,000. The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on this consent. The petitioner later sought a review of this order. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's counsel had consented to the arrangement in the High Court, the order was binding. The Court affirmed that irrespective of the initial jurisdictional issues regarding the Assistant Collector, a consent order passed in constitutional jurisdiction is valid and not subject to review, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge an order in review proceedings if that order was passed in the High Court based on the express consent of the parties?
- Does a consent order recorded in constitutional jurisdiction preclude a party from later challenging the underlying jurisdictional competence of the original forum?
- Faiz Muhammad and others vs Mehrab Shah and others1997 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a consolidated batch of appeals filed by private complainants against orders of acquittal passed by Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The core legal question addressed by the Peshawar High Court is whether a private complainant has a right to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, in pari materia with section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that a right of appeal is a creature of statute and a substantive right, which cannot be presumed or read into a special enactment through judicial interpretation when it is not expressly provided. Since section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 explicitly limits the right of appeal to the convict or the Provincial Government, private complainants possess no such right. Consequently, all appeals by private complainants were dismissed as not maintainable, while the Court recommended legislative amendment to align the special statute with Islamic principles and general criminal procedure.
Questions settled- Whether a private complainant has a right of appeal against an acquittal under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
- Is a right of appeal considered a matter of procedure or a substantive right created by statute?
- Can courts read a right of appeal into a special enactment by interpretation when it is expressly omitted by the Legislature?
- Do the words 'passed by any Court' in section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include Special Courts created under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
- Faiz Batool vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
- Faiz Bakhsh Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Faqir Muhammad And Other1997 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the computation of the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, specifically whether limitation commences from the date of attestation of the sale mutation or from the date physical possession was taken under the sale, whichever is earlier. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly determined that physical possession of the suit land was delivered prior to the sanction of the mutation, and therefore the limitation period commenced from that earlier date, rendering the suit time-barred. The Court affirmed the principle that under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, limitation for enforcing a right of pre-emption begins from the date of attestation of the sale or the date of taking physical possession under the sale, whichever is earlier.
Questions settled- From what date does the period of limitation commence for filing a pre-emption suit under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Whether the period of limitation starts from the date of attestation of the sale or the date of taking physical possession under the sale, whichever is earlier?
- Does the reporting of a sale and delivery of possession in the Roznamcha Waqiati constitute taking physical possession for the purpose of limitation in a pre-emption suit?