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.

• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Sarfraz Malik And 31996 MLD 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Lahore Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-I1996 P.C.T.L.R. 709 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Sh. Sajjad Hussain and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 2039 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Sabir Construction Company, Karachi and 3 others1996 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs National Iron and Steel Rolling1996 PTD 516 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Star Flour Mills vs Province of Punjab and others1996 PLD Lahore 687 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-04
  Inter-provincial tradeFreedom of tradeConstitutional petitionUltra viresExisting lawFoodstuffs controlExecutive authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, various flour mills, challenged a June 12, 1996, notification issued by the Punjab Government under Section 3 of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, which prohibited the transfer of wheat and wheat products from Punjab to other provinces. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government possessed the authority to restrict inter-provincial trade and whether the notification violated Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the notification was ultra vires and illegal. It determined that the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, only empowered the government to control intra-provincial movement, not inter-provincial trade. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 151, the Provincial Government lacks the executive authority to restrict the movement of goods between provinces, as such restrictions are reserved for the Parliament or require specific constitutional conditions—such as alleviating serious shortages—which were not established here. The Court affirmed that 'existing laws' under Article 268 remain subject to constitutional scrutiny, and executive orders cannot override constitutional guarantees regarding the freedom of trade and commerce.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, authorize the Provincial Government to restrict the inter-provincial movement of wheat and wheat products?
  • Can a Provincial Government issue an executive order restricting inter-provincial trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are 'existing laws' under Article 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 immune from constitutional scrutiny?
  • Does the Provincial Government have the authority to impose restrictions on the export of goods from the province to other provinces?
  Read full judgment →
• Standard Batteries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income1996 P.C.T.L.R. 275 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-04-22Read full judgment →
• Standard Batteries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, .1996 PTD 143 · Bombay High Court · 1992-12-03Read full judgment →
• Spl.(Mst.) Rose Nyokabi Wacira vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 90 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Spectrum Communications Limited, Karachi vs Mrs. Nasim Bashir1996 CLC 936 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. Etc.Tata Chemicals Ltd., Bombay vs Union Of India And Other, R.M. Desai, Inspector Central Excise, Mithapur And Other(PTCL 1996 FC. 227) · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Soomar and 15 others vs Muhammad Parial and 14 others1996 CLC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
• Sono vs The State1996 MLD 28 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
• Song vs The State1996 MLD 28 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Sohrab Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Sohail Younus, Prop. Madina Plastic Works, Faisalabad Ito, Circle (B), Faisalabad vs Ito, Circle (B), Faisalabad Sohail Younus, Prop. Madina Plastic Works, Faisalabad1996 P.C.T.L.R. 412 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Suzuki Motorcycles Pakistan Limited, Karachi through Company1996 PLC 637 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sohail vs Badam and another1996 P Cr. L J 555 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ali Mirza vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 988 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad Pathan vs Sindh Public Service Commission and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 1004 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-26
  grace markscompetitive examinationpublic service commissiondiscretionary powercivil service recruitmentmerit listviva voce
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by a candidate who challenged the refusal of the Sindh Public Service Commission to grant him a single grace mark in the written paper of 'Essay in English' for the Combined Competitive Examination, 1993. The petitioner had secured 627 out of 900 total marks and would have ranked fourth in merit but fell one mark short of the passing threshold in that single paper. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the discretion vested in the Commission under the relevant rules to award grace marks to 'really deserving candidates' and the manner in which such grace marks affect the candidate's position on the merit list. The Court held that the Commission failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with law by arbitrarily withholding a grace mark from a demonstrably meritorious candidate who had achieved an exceptionally high aggregate score. The Court ruled that grace marks are intended to provide a necessary reprieve in borderline cases and must be beneficially construed to advance merit rather than render the enabling rule redundant. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the Commission to award the grace mark and permit the petitioner to appear in the viva voce examination, while clarifying the prospective application of rules regarding placement on the final merit list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sindh Public Service Commission is bound to exercise its discretion to award grace marks to a really deserving candidate who falls short by a single mark in a written paper?
  • How should the statutory provision permitting the grant of grace marks in competitive examinations be construed in light of its legislative history and purpose?
  • Does the award of grace marks entitle a candidate to secure a higher position in the merit list than those successful candidates who did not require grace marks?
  Read full judgment →
• Society of the Capuchin Fathers vs Government of Punjab and anothers1996 MLD 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Society of the Capuchin Fathers vs Government of Punjab And Another1996 MLD 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sobho Gianchandni vs Federation of Pakistan Arid 8 Other1996 MLD 1569 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sobho Gianchandani vs Federation of Pakistan and 8 others1996 MLD 1569 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Slier Ahmad, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Member, Federal Land Commission and others1996 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08
  Land Reforms Regulation 1972suo motu powersaudi alteram partemgift to legal heirsconstitutional petitionrevisional jurisdictionIslamic Injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission, which declared a gift of land made by the petitioner to his legal heir void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions concern whether the Commission could exercise suo motu revisional powers to set aside such a gift and whether the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the donee an opportunity of being heard. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it violated the principle of audi alteram partem by condemning the donee unheard. Additionally, the Court observed that the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, had been declared contrary to Islamic Injunctions by the Supreme Court, rendering the impugned order legally ineffective. The key principle laid down is that alienations made by way of gifts to legal heirs, as enumerated in the proviso to the Land Reforms Regulation, are immune from scrutiny by Land Reforms authorities, and the Commission's revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional errors rather than re-evaluating factual merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Land Commission have the authority to set aside a gift made to a legal heir under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Is an order passed by the Federal Land Commission without providing the affected party an opportunity of being heard legally sustainable?
  • Are the revisional powers of the Federal Land Commission under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, limited to correcting jurisdictional errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd, And Other vs Noorani EnterprisesK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 155 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-09Read full judgment →
• Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. and 3 others vs Noorani1996 CLC 570 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-09
  intra-court appealinterim orderprior noticemandatory versus directorycode of civil procedureprocedural lawsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal addressed the maintainability of an intra-court appeal directed against an interim order, specifically examining the legal effect and mandatory or directory nature of the requirement of prior notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the failure to effect actual prior service of notice upon the respondent before the presentation of an interlocutory appeal warrants the automatic dismissal of the appeal, or if the provision is directory and capable of substantial compliance. The court held that the requirement of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 is directory rather than mandatory or absolute, as it employs affirmative language, does not stipulate automatic invalidity upon non-compliance, and is designed to ensure expeditious disposal rather than create procedural stumbling blocks. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions must be interpreted to advance justice; where notice has been issued and the respondent subsequently appears without suffering prejudice, substantial compliance satisfies the rule, leaving the consequences of any procedural default to the judicious discretion of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory or directory?
  • Does failure to effect actual prior service of notice before the presentation of an interlocutory appeal warrant the automatic dismissal of the appeal in all circumstances?
  • What constitutes substantial compliance with the notice requirements mandated for appeals preferred against interim orders during the pendency of a suit?
  • Can procedural rules regarding pre-admission notice be utilized as stumbling blocks to defeat the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution vs Allwin Engineering1996 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  constitutional petitionalternative remedysocial security contributionadjudication on meritspreliminary objectionmaintainabilitySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed constitutional petitions challenging the appellant's authority to claim social security contributions for certain employees. The High Court held that the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance provided an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy, rendering constitutional petitions non-maintainable. Despite this finding on the preliminary point, the High Court proceeded to make observations on the merits regarding the interpretation of provisions concerning 'employees' and wage limits. The core legal question is whether a court, upon declining to entertain a petition on a preliminary ground of alternative remedy, should adjudicate or express views on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that once a court concludes a petition is not maintainable due to an alternative remedy, it ought not to make observations on the merits so as not to prejudice the parties or pre-empt the first forum. The appeals were accordingly allowed, and the High Court's observations on merits were expunged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court should express views on the merits of a case after holding that a constitutional petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an adequate alternative remedy under the statute?
  • Can a court pre-empt the first forum from placing its interpretation on a statutory provision when dismissing a petition on a preliminary ground?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Abadgar's Sugar Mills Ltd., Dinpur District Hyderabad vs Muhammad Arab1996 PLC 61 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sikander Aqeel Ansari vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1996 PLC (C.S.) 740 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-09-03Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs Chairman Banking Tribunalii, Karachi and another1996 CLC 75 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 108 · Board of Revenue · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and others vs Muhammad Akhtar and others1996 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and anothers vs Abdul Raheem alias Leemon and another1996 CLC 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-19
  civil revisiondismissal for non-prosecutionfresh suitcause of actionprocedural barrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application arose from the dismissal of a suit challenging the transfer of a municipal shop. The applicants had previously filed a suit regarding the same subject matter, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, they filed a second suit on the same cause of action, which the trial court rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the bar imposed by Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellate court upheld this rejection. The core legal question was whether a fresh suit is maintainable when a previous suit involving the same parties and cause of action was dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court held that the second suit was clearly barred under Order IX, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the proper remedy for the applicants was to apply for the restoration of the original suit by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, rather than filing a fresh suit. The revision application was dismissed, affirming that the lower courts correctly applied the procedural bar.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh suit maintainable when a previous suit between the same parties on the same cause of action was dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed for non-appearance under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the filing of a second suit on the same cause of action after the dismissal of the first for non-prosecution violate the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique alias Kali and others vs The State1996 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  murdergrave and sudden provocationocular testimonymedical evidenceleave to appealjoint liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the judgment of the High Court affirming the trial court's conviction and sentencing of the petitioners under Sections 302/149 and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted and killed the deceased, Salamat Ali, and subsequently brought Mst. Ramzan Bibi to the scene and murdered her, motivated by a prior abduction dispute. The petitioners raised the defense of grave and sudden provocation, claiming the deceased were found in a compromising position. The High Court rejected this defense, noting that the murders occurred in an open courtyard during May when villagers sleep outside, making a compromising position highly improbable. Furthermore, the medical evidence showing multiple types of weapons belied the claim that a single accused committed the acts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence was properly appreciated without any misreading, and the defense of grave and sudden provocation was rightly rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be sustained if the physical circumstances and location of the crime render the alleged compromising position highly improbable?
  • Whether the use of multiple distinct weapons, as shown by medical evidence, can defeat a defense claim that a single accused committed the murders under provocation?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction where there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• Sibghatullah and another vs The State and others1996 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-05
  murderappraisal of evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusocular evidencesifting grain from the chaffacquittalcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant Sibghatullah under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf, while acquitting a co-accused and dismissing an appeal against the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether the acquittal of several co-accused tainted the entire ocular testimony under the principle of sifting grain from the chaff, and whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the same evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence, and that ocular testimony found credible and consistent upon close appraisal can be acted upon to sustain a conviction despite the acquittal of other co-accused. The Court laid down that the acquittal of some accused does not automatically destroy the credibility of eye-witnesses against a remaining accused where the testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and motive, and stands the test of cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons renders ocular evidence entirely unreliable against a remaining convicted appellant?
  • Does the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to the appraisement of evidence in criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on ocular testimony that was partly rejected regarding other co-accused?
  • Under what circumstances is re-appraisal of evidence justified by the Supreme Court in criminal appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Shujat Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Shujah Haider vs Chief Election Commissioner, Azad J&K and 8 other1996 CLC 1842 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Mehmood Butt vs Iftikhar-Ul-Haq and 3 others1996 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-17
  cancellation of bailfurther enquirycounter-versiontentative assessmentprivate defencepost-arrest bailmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two criminal petitions filed by the complainant seeking leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to multiple accused in a double murder case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 PPC. The incident involved two counter-versions recorded in separate FIRs arising out of the execution of an eviction order. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the material on record to grant bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the grant of bail, reiterating that in cases involving counter-versions and pleas of private defense, the determination of which version is true or which party is the aggressor falls within the realm of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court affirmed that courts evaluating bail applications may conduct a tentative assessment of available material without expressing conclusive findings on guilt or innocence, and held that the High Court's assessment was neither perverse nor capricious.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether the existence of counter-versions in separate FIRs for the same incident constitutes a ground for further enquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the distinction between tentative assessment of evidence for bail and elaborate sifting/appraisement of evidence reserved for trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 810 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-05
  post-arrest bailfresh groundssuccessive bail applicationprinciple of consistencyextra-judicial confessionbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under sections 302, 460, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a subsequent bail petition can be entertained when the previous bail application was dismissed on merits, and whether grounds available but not raised during the initial application constitute 'fresh grounds' for a second attempt. The Court held that while there is no absolute bar to repeating a bail petition, it is only permissible if based on genuine fresh grounds. The Court determined that 'fresh grounds' are defined as those that did not exist at the time of the first application. If a ground was available but not pressed during the earlier hearing, it cannot be considered a fresh ground for a subsequent petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding that the arguments regarding the merits and the principle of consistency were available during the earlier proceedings and thus did not constitute valid grounds for reconsideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second bail petition be entertained if the previous one was dismissed on merits?
  • What constitutes 'fresh grounds' for the purpose of filing a subsequent bail application?
  • Does the failure to raise an available argument during an initial bail hearing constitute a waiver of that ground for future applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Shitab Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1779 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shiraz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 189 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs Home Department and others1996 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and anothers vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 8 others vs Ismatullah and 3 others1996 CLC 206 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-08-16
  malicious prosecutionlimitationexclusion of timeterritorial jurisdictionbona fide litigationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, where the core legal question concerned the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the exclusion of time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction, specifically when no formal application for condonation was pleaded in the plaint. The Court held that the benefit of Section 14 is available even without a specific application in the plaint, provided the parties were aware of the facts and the prior litigation was pursued in good faith. However, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded because the lower court failed to record a specific finding on whether the prior proceedings were conducted in good faith. The key principle laid down is that Section 14 is intended to protect bona fide but infructuous litigation, and a court may grant its benefit if the necessary conditions—that the suit was filed in a wrong forum due to a bona fide mistake of law or procedure—are satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 without having filed a formal application for condonation in the plaint?
  • Does the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply when a plaint is returned for lack of jurisdiction and refiled in a competent court?
  • What are the necessary conditions for a court to grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the exclusion of time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Mehmood Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Nwfppeshawar And 5 Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 638 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 668 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sher Baz Khan and 73 others vs Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and 21996 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-13
  minoritynatural guardianalienation of immovable propertymutation of salevoid transactionburden of prooflimitationpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two regular first appeals arising from a consolidated decree of the trial court that decreed two identical suits filed by respondent No. 1 challenging two oral sales and subsequent mutations of agricultural land executed during her minority. The core legal questions involved the validity of property alienations made by a natural guardian and alleged general attorneys of a minor, the applicability of limitation under the Limitation Act, and the burden of proof regarding consideration and the minor's welfare. The Lahore High Court held that contracts entered into during minority are void ab initio, that a natural guardian's power to alienate immovable property of a minor is strictly restricted to specific exceptional cases under Muhammadan Law, and that the defendants failed to establish valid authority, consideration, or that the sales were for the minor's benefit. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the suits were within time under section 6 of the Limitation Act 1908 and that the unauthorized transactions were void and inoperative against the plaintiff's ownership rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral sale and mutation of a minor's immovable property executed by a natural guardian or alleged attorneys is valid without proof of legal necessity and the minor's welfare?
  • Does a general power of attorney inherently include the implied authority to alienate or dispose of the principal's property without a clear, separate clause to that effect?
  • Whether a suit challenging alienations made during minority, filed after attaining majority, is within time when computed with the benefit of legal disability provisions?
  • Can the principle of estoppel be invoked against a minor who was not a party to void transactions executed during minority?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Khan and 3 others vs Anwar Khan and 4 others1996 CLC 1624 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar vs Additional Sessions Judge1996 P Cr. L J 1192 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs Messrs Reckitt & Colman of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi through Managing Director1996 PLC 213 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Akbar vs The State and another1996 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1896 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sheo Balak Ram Ganesh Prasad vs Union Of India And Other(PTCL 1996 FC. 105) · Allahabad High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rashid Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 370 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-03
  bail applicationjudicial proprietyforum shoppingconflicting judgmentswithdrawal of bail petitionbinding precedentDivision Bench competency
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a preliminary objection regarding the competency of the current Division Bench to hear several bail applications, given that previous bail applications in the same cases had been dismissed as withdrawn by a different Division Bench of the same High Court. The core legal question was whether the principle established in the Supreme Court case 'The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others' (PLD 1986 SC 173)—which mandates that subsequent bail applications must be heard by the same Judge or Bench that decided the earlier one—applies to cases where the previous application was dismissed as withdrawn, and whether it applies to Division Benches as well as Single Judges. The Court held that the ratio of the Zubair case is binding and applies to all bail applications, regardless of whether the previous order was a dismissal on merits or a dismissal as withdrawn, and regardless of whether the previous Bench was a Single Judge or a Division Bench. The Court affirmed that this rule of propriety and judicial harmony is a binding principle of law under Article 189 of the Constitution, aimed at preventing conflicting orders and forum shopping.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle in 'The State v. Zubair' requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same Bench apply when the previous application was dismissed as withdrawn?
  • Is the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same Judge or Bench applicable to Division Benches of the High Court?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application as withdrawn constitute a disposal of the matter sufficient to trigger the requirement that subsequent applications be heard by the same Bench?
  • Is the principle of judicial propriety regarding the assignment of bail applications a binding principle of law under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rashid Ahmad vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-28
  transfer of prisonersuppression of terrorist activitiesinherent powerscriminal appealconsultation with legal practitionermala fide transferSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for transfer from Bahawalpur Jail to Rawalpindi Jail during the pendency of his criminal appeal against a conviction under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court has jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to order the transfer of a convict prisoner from one jail to another, notwithstanding the exclusionary provisions of section 7 of the said Act, and whether section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or inherent powers can be invoked to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court held that although section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 excludes certain specific powers, the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to pass necessary orders to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, especially where a transfer order is shown to be unmotivated or mala fide and departs from prison rules without justification. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioner's transfer was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order the transfer of a convict prisoner from one jail to another during the pendency of an appeal under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can the High Court invoke section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant relief not expressly barred when necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process?
  • Does the transfer of a convict prisoner away from the station where his appeal is being heard violate the fundamental right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under Article 10 of the Constitution?
  • What constitutes a fit case for the High Court to interfere with the custody or prison placement of a convict during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad vs Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others1996 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali and others vs Sufi Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din1996 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28
  pre-emptionrevisional jurisdictionSection 115 C.P.C.concurrent findingsagricultural landurban immovable propertymixed question of law and fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning whether the subject land was agricultural or urban immovable property. The trial and appellate courts concurrently held the land was agricultural and thus pre-emptible. The High Court, in revision, reversed these findings, concluding the land had attained the character of urban property. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., by re-appraising evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on assumptions unsupported by the record. The Court clarified that determining the nature of land—whether agricultural or urban—is a mixed question of law and fact, not a pure question of law. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and do not permit the re-examination of evidence unless the lower court’s findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or rely on inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of whether land is agricultural or urban in character a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C.?
  • Does the mere assessment of land to land revenue conclusively prove its character as agricultural land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ayaz and 2 others vs Malik Ishtiaq1996 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  bona fide requirementrent restrictionperpetual leaselocus standievictiongift deedlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction order granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the High Court under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, based on the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. The appellants challenged the eviction, arguing that the landlord possessed other premises and that a prior agreement created a perpetual lease in their favor. The Supreme Court addressed whether an indefinite lease agreement creates a heritable interest and whether a tenant has standing to challenge the landlord's title via a gift deed. The Court held that, under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a lease for an indefinite period generally ensures only for the lifetime of the grantee, not their heirs, unless specific language indicates otherwise. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a tenant lacks locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift deed regarding the property, absent proof of mala fide. The concurrent findings regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement were upheld as questions of fact. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does a lease agreement for an indefinite period create a heritable interest for the lessee's heirs?
  • Does a tenant have the legal standing to challenge the validity of a gift deed executed in favor of the landlord?
  • Is the determination of whether a landlord's existing premises are sufficient for their business needs a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mahmood Saeed and others vs Amir Nawaz Khan and another1996 SCMR 839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-18
  quashment of proceedingsSection 145 Cr.P.C.inherent powers of High Courtabuse of processland disputecompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court order refusing to quash proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) concerning a land dispute. The petitioners sought quashment under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., arguing that a prior compromise before a Revenue E.A.C. court rendered the ongoing criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The core legal question was whether the existence of a disputed compromise agreement constitutes sufficient grounds for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash pending Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the alleged compromise did not provide a valid basis for quashment in this instance. The Court affirmed that while the High Court possesses the power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of court process or unnecessary harassment, such powers should not be exercised lightly. The Court reiterated the principle that cases should generally proceed according to law, and Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. should not be used to circumvent due process unless the proceedings are clearly vexatious or false.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a prior compromise agreement between parties automatically justify the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C.?
  • Under what circumstances should the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings?
  • Is the pendency of a civil or revenue dispute regarding a compromise sufficient ground to halt criminal proceedings concerning the possession of land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Azizullah vs Haji Qismat Khan and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21
  arbitration agreementawardreference to arbitrationpecuniary jurisdictionleave to appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute regarding an arbitration agreement and award. The petitioner sought to make an arbitration award a rule of court, but the respondent denied executing the arbitration agreement. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding no valid arbitration agreement or award, which was upheld through successive appellate and revisional forums, culminating in the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's revision. The core legal question was whether an ambiguous document lacking the nature of the dispute can constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement must clearly state the existence of a dispute to be referred to arbitration; an ambiguous document silent on the nature of the dispute cannot form the basis of a valid reference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that vague and ambiguous arbitration agreements vitiate arbitration proceedings, though the petitioner remains at liberty to seek redress through an ordinary civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ambiguous document silent on the nature of a dispute can constitute a valid arbitration agreement?
  • Does the absence of a clearly stated dispute vitiate arbitration proceedings?
  • Can an unregistered arbitration agreement and award be made a rule of court when its execution is denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Hussain Qureshi vs The State1996 MLD 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Bibi vs Muhammad Ikhlaq Khan1996 MLD 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Bib1 vs Muhammad Ikhlaq Khan1996 MLD 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Shehla Rubab vs Mst. Nighat Saifullah Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Shehla Rubab vs Mst. Nighat Saifullah Khan And Another1996 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Shazia Iram vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health and others1996 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-11
  medical college admissionurban versus rural quotamerit-based admissionconstitutional petitionsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which had dismissed the appellant's constitution petition upholding the refusal of admission to Bolan Medical College by its Selection Committee. The core legal question was whether an applicant, whose application for admission against a reserved rural seat was rejected on the ground of being a resident of an urban area, could be considered for an urban seat on merits even if she had not specifically applied for it. The Supreme Court held that an applicant entitled to admission on merit cannot be denied admission merely due to an omission to apply for a specific reserved category, provided they otherwise qualify on merits and the college prospectus does not bar it. Relying on precedent, the Court ruled that rejecting candidates on such hyper-technical grounds militates against the spirit of institutional admission policies. The appeal was accordingly allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and regularizing the appellant's admission against an urban seat.

  Questions settled

  • Can an applicant whose candidature for a reserved rural seat is rejected on residency grounds be considered for an urban seat on merits without a formal separate application?
  • Does an omission to apply for a specific reserved category serve as a sufficient ground to deny admission to an applicant otherwise qualified on open merit?
  • Whether hyper-technical objections regarding application forms can override substantive merit in educational institution admissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shatab Khan and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-29
  surety bondsforfeiture of bail bondscriminal revisionproclaimed offenderfugitive from lawsurety penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises out of orders passed by the lower courts forfeiting the surety bonds of the petitioners amounting to Rs. 30,000 each after the accused for whom they stood surety failed to appear in court and became a fugitive from law in a separate murder case. The core legal question is whether surety bonds can be justly forfeited when the accused has absconded and been declared a proclaimed offender, and the sureties are poor, illiterate individuals who acted purely out of humanitarian considerations. The Lahore High Court held that since the accused became a fugitive and even the State failed to apprehend him, it was humanly impossible for the simple, impoverished petitioners to produce him, rendering the forfeiture of their bonds oppressive and unjust. The court laid down the principle that where an accused absconds in circumstances beyond the control of sureties who acted without monetary gain, enforcing the full penalty of surety bonds is unjust, warranting the setting aside of forfeiture orders under revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the forfeiture of surety bonds is justified when the accused becomes a fugitive from law and is declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Can poor and illiterate sureties be penalized for failing to produce an accused who has absconded in a separate criminal case?
  • Does the inability of the State to apprehend an absconding accused affect the liability of his sureties to pay the penalty on forfeited bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifan Bibi vs Muhammad Latif and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 1720 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali and 28 others vs Zeenat Shirt Factory, S.F. Unit No. 50, Karachi1996 PLC 368 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Shantilal Khushaldas and Bros. Pvt Ltd. vs (Smt.) Chandanbala1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1114 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shankar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-10
  search warrantrecovery mashirsection 103 CrPCProhibition Order 1979opium recoveryillegal searchacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The prosecution alleged that pursuant to spy information, an excise party raided a house, conducted a personal search of the appellant, and searched the premises, recovering 5.25 Kgs of opium. The core legal questions pertained to the failure to obtain a search warrant before raiding a private house and the non-association of two respectable local inhabitants during the recovery search. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that obtaining a search warrant under Article 22 of the Order before searching private premises is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the search illegal. Furthermore, associating only one non-local witness violates Section 103, Cr.P.C., which requires two or more respectable local inhabitants, thereby vitiating the search proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is obtaining a search warrant under Article 22 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 mandatory before raiding private premises?
  • Does associating only one public witness fulfill the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained discrepancy in weight between the recovered contraband and the Chemical Examiner's report create reasonable doubt regarding the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Haq and 3 others vs Muhammad Jamil1996 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin, Mir Jat vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 382 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-13
  post-arrest bailocular and medical evidence conflictfurther inquirymurderexceptions to bail rulecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a conflict arises between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired. The High Court held that normally the contents of the F.I.R. and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are accepted at face value at the bail stage, but a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence creates scope for further inquiry, bringing the case within an exception justifying the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that whenever reasonable doubt arises regarding the participation of an accused or the probability of the prosecution case, particularly due to medical contradictions, the accused should not be deprived of the benefit of bail, as the damage of incarcerating an innocent person is irreparable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence provides a ground for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • What are the exceptions to the general rule that the contents of an F.I.R. and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted at face value at the bail stage?
  • Does a bail application need to be placed before the Principal Seat and the Chief Justice when a previous bail dismissal order was not decided on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin vs Muhammad Sharif1996 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali Qureshi vs Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton1996 PLD Karachi 470 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Shams Ullah Khan and another vs Muhammad Akram Khan and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-12-09Read full judgment →
• Shams Ud Din vs Muhammad Sharif1996 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shamon Jatoi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 783 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-04
  statutory bailrule of consistencypre-trial detentionhardened criminalstatutory delaybail application
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, charged in a kidnapping case, sought bail on the grounds of statutory delay, having been incarcerated since 1989 without trial commencement. The State opposed the application, characterizing the applicant as a hardened and habitual criminal involved in multiple cases. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite allegations of being a habitual offender under the fourth proviso. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that he had been acquitted or granted bail in eight out of ten cases, and his previous conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not meet the criteria of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment required to trigger the fourth proviso. Furthermore, the Court applied the Rule of Consistency, noting that a co-accused with identical evidence had already been granted bail. The Court affirmed that statutory bail is a right, not a discretionary matter, and that six years of pre-trial detention was excessive.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory right or a matter of judicial discretion?
  • Does a previous conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically classify an accused as a hardened criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail based on the Rule of Consistency if a co-accused facing identical evidence has already been released?
  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused, where they have been acquitted or granted bail in most, justify classifying them as a desperate or dangerous criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shamir Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shamim Haider Kazmi vs Presiding Officer, Ivth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and 3 others1996 PLC 337 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar and 6 others vs Mst. Maimoona Begum1996 CLC 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shamasuddin vs Muhammad Sharif1996 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22
  Specific performanceOrder 17 Rule 3 CPCExpeditious disposalReasonable opportunity of hearingRemand of caseClosing of evidenceCivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the trial court's judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance of a contract for want of evidence. The trial court had invoked Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to close the plaintiff's evidence and dismiss the suit, citing the plaintiff's failure to produce evidence within the time frame directed by the District Judge. The High Court found that the plaintiff had acted diligently in summoning witnesses, but the evidence could not be recorded due to the absence of necessary documents held by the police, not due to the plaintiff's negligence. The Court held that while directions for expeditious disposal are important, they are directory in nature and must not supersede the fundamental right of a party to a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Penal provisions for closing evidence should not be applied where the party is not at fault. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for trial on its merits, emphasizing that justice must not be sacrificed for the sake of speed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close evidence when the delay is not caused by the party's contumacious negligence?
  • Are directions from superior courts for the expeditious disposal of cases mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does the requirement for expeditious disposal of cases justify depriving a party of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Iqbal vs The State1996 MLD 759 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Shaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 638 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad, Constable C-1821 vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 933 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Nadeem Younas, Chief Executive, Noble Textile Mills, Pattoki, District Kasur vs WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 4 others1996 CLC 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16
  electricity tariffWAPDAsurchargejudicial reviewpublic utilityconstitutional petitionprice fixation
  Summary & questions settled

  The consolidated writ petitions challenged the imposition of surcharge and additional surcharge on electricity tariffs by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The core legal questions were whether WAPDA possessed the statutory authority to unilaterally impose these levies, whether such levies constituted a tax, and whether the tariff fixation was subject to judicial review. The Court held that WAPDA, as a licensee under the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, is empowered to fix and revise tariffs, including surcharges, which are appendages to the tariff rather than independent taxes. Consequently, the Court declined to strike down the levies, finding them within the scope of Section 25 of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The key principles laid down are that surcharges on electricity tariffs are not taxes; WAPDA has the statutory power to fix tariffs unilaterally without prior notice to consumers; and judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrary or unreasonable tariff fixation, rather than merely high rates, as price fixation is primarily an executive function.

  Questions settled

  • Does WAPDA have the statutory authority to unilaterally fix or revise electricity tariffs?
  • Are surcharges and additional surcharges on electricity bills considered taxes or appendages to the tariff?
  • Is the fixation of electricity tariff subject to judicial review by the High Court?
  • Does the imposition of electricity surcharges require prior notice to consumers?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 697 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Gulzar alias Gulloo vs Mirza Bashir Baig and another1996 CLC 1293 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 978 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyjudicial discretionpresumption of innocenceparity of treatmentbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Shahzad, challenging the rejection of his bail by the Special Court in a case involving offences under sections 436, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing bail to the applicant while granting bail to a co-accused, Shoukat, despite the evidence against both being identical. The High Court held that the trial court’s reasoning was perverse and demonstrated a lack of judicial mind. The Court emphasized the rule of consistency, holding that where multiple accused are charged with the same offence and the evidence and circumstances are similar, they must be treated alike. Consequently, if one co-accused is granted bail, the other similarly placed accused is entitled to the same relief. The Court reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the fundamental right to liberty. The applicant was admitted to bail, ensuring parity in judicial treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require that co-accused persons facing identical evidence be treated alike in bail matters?
  • Is the refusal of bail to an accused justified when a co-accused, against whom the evidence is identical, has been granted bail?
  • Does the presumption of innocence entitle an accused to be released on bail during the pendency of a trial?
  • Can a trial court refuse bail solely on the ground that the case is fresh and no charge has been framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Alam vs Presiding Officer, Ivth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi1996 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 265 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-29Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz vs National Motors Ltd., Karachi1996 PLC 348 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Sultan Ali vs Sony Kabushiki Kaisha1996 P.C T.L R. 1536 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Shahmurad Sugar Mills Ltd., District Thatta vs Ghulam Mustafa1996 PLC 624 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →