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.
- Shahid-Ul-Qayyum and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Economic Affairs and Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-6-1994, which modified departmental penalties imposed upon a civil servant, Shahid-ul-Qayyum, reducing them to stoppage of two increments for two years with cumulative effect. The core legal questions involve whether penalties could be sustained when the tribunal found the petitioner's only fault was purchasing an air-conditioner without written approval and lacking direct responsibility for store shortages, and whether an inquiry is vitiated when a petitioner is denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the lack of justification for penalties and the vitiation of the inquiry due to denial of cross-examination required detailed consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioner employee and the Federation of Pakistan, establishing that procedural fairness regarding cross-examination and the proportionality of penalties based on established factual findings warrant full appellate review.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental penalty can be sustained when the Service Tribunal finds the employee's only fault was a procedural omission without direct responsibility for loss?
- Does the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses vitiate a departmental inquiry?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the authority to modify departmental penalties imposed upon a civil servant?
- Shahid Nabi Malik vs Muhammad Ishaq Dar And 5 Other1996 MLD 295 · Election Tribunal · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mumtaz and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
- Shahid Islam vs N.I.R.C. and others1996 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid and 2 others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the trial court's acquittal of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and remanded the case for retrial. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in ordering a retrial after setting aside the acquittal, and whether such an order violated the principles regarding delayed trials. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the trial court had failed to evaluate the ocular evidence independently and merely reproduced defense arguments. The Court clarified that the remand was not a de novo trial requiring fresh evidence, but merely a reconsideration of the existing record regarding ocular testimony, thereby distinguishing it from cases where prolonged delays bar a retrial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that a trial court cannot abdicate its duty to independently evaluate evidence simply due to a lack of assistance from counsel.
Questions settled- Can the High Court order a retrial in a criminal revision against an acquittal under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an order of retrial restricted to the reconsideration of existing ocular evidence constitute a de novo trial attracting the bar of prolonged delay?
- Is a trial court absolved from independently evaluating evidence merely because the State counsel failed to satisfactorily reply to defense arguments?
- What are the mandatory requirements of a criminal judgment under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shahid Ahmed alias Shahid Mukhtar and 9 others vs Mst. Rasheeda1996 PLD Karachi 494 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of leased premises at Rs. 9,000 per month. The core legal question concerns whether rent fixed by mutual agreement can be revised and the proper methodology for determining fair rent under the governing statute. The Sindh High Court held that a previous mutual agreement between landlord and tenant does not bar an application for the fixation of fair rent under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, and that the Rent Controller must determine fair rent based on statutory factors such as prevailing rents of similar premises, rise in construction costs, and taxes. The Court modified the Rent Controller's order by reducing the fair rent to Rs. 6,750 per month based on admissions in evidence regarding per-square-foot rates in the locality, and held that where the statute is silent, the effective date for fair rent can be fixed from the date of the application or when the landlord agitated the right. The key principle laid down is that fair rent must be anchored in evidence of prevailing local rates and statutory factors rather than arbitrary assessment.
Questions settled- Whether rent fixed by mutual agreement between a landlord and tenant can subsequently be revised through an application for fair rent?
- What factors must a Rent Controller consider when determining the fair rent of premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
- From which date can the Rent Controller make the fixed fair rent effective when the statute does not explicitly prescribe a date?
- Can unproved lease agreements and uncrossed witness affidavits be relied upon to determine prevailing local rents?
- Shahgofta Parveen And Other vs Chairman Board of Education(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 73) · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
- Shaheen Akhtar vs Miss Farzana Shaheen and 3 others1996 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench which allowed the Constitution petition filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was originally appointed as Assistant Provost (Girls) by the University of Peshawar, and her post was later redesigned as Warden and transferred to the New Tribal Hostel for Girls. Subsequently, the University advertised the post of Assistant Provost, leading to competing claims between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, who was ultimately recommended by the Selection Board. After withdrawing a civil suit and injunction proceedings, respondent No. 1 successfully challenged the University's action through a Constitution petition, wherein the High Court held that the original post was not abolished but merely redesigned, rendering it unavailable for advertisement, and that the University's action was tainted with mala fides. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding the abolition of the post, estoppel against an unsuccessful applicant, and the maintainability of the Constitution petition, and consequently granted leave to appeal while continuing interim arrangements.
Questions settled- Whether a post that has been redesigned along with its incumbent remains available for fresh advertisement and initial recruitment?
- Whether an employee who applies for a post under protest is estopped from subsequently challenging the appointment made to that post?
- Whether the redesignation of a university post can be validly executed by the Registrar?
- Whether a Constitution petition is maintainable against service matters of a university governed by its statutes?
- Shahbaz And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 268 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Shahan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 795 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Shahamand vs Javaid Hassan1996 MLD 952 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
- Shahamad and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants, Rasab and Shahamad, for the murder of the deceased, Shera, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted the appellants, and the High Court maintained these convictions, relying primarily on the ocular testimony of two witnesses. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt when the credibility of the sole remaining eyewitness was severely compromised by prior inconsistent statements made during the police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable. The Court noted that the High Court had correctly rejected one witness but erred in relying on the second, whose testimony was contradicted by his own admissions during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court held that motive and the First Information Report, when recorded by a person not present at the scene, cannot corroborate unreliable ocular evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when the witness's presence at the scene is rendered doubtful by prior inconsistent statements?
- Does the existence of a motive provide sufficient corroboration for unreliable eyewitness testimony in a criminal trial?
- Can a First Information Report serve as corroborative evidence if the complainant was not an eyewitness to the occurrence?
- Shahab Ud Din vs The State1996 MLD 624 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Junejo vs Jam Mashooq Ali and others1996 MLD 1602 · Election Tribunal · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Junejo vs Jam Mashooq Ali And Other1996 MLD 1602 · Election Tribunal · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding convictions under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the impact of the acquittal of co-accused on the prosecution's case, and the applicability of common intention in a sudden fight. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appraised the evidence, noting that the prompt lodging of the FIR and the presence of injured witnesses established the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the acquittal of co-accused did not invalidate the conviction of the petitioners, as the courts had properly differentiated their roles. Consequently, the Court affirmed the convictions and life sentences for two petitioners but granted leave to appeal specifically to determine whether the death sentence of the primary petitioner, Shah Nawaz, was justified compared to the life sentences awarded to his co-accused. The judgment reaffirms that distinct evidence against specific accused sustains convictions despite partial acquittals.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when the witnesses are alleged to be interested and inimical?
- Is the sentence of death for one co-accused justified when other co-accused, convicted under the same sections, receive life imprisonment?
- Shah Muhammad vs Wahid Bux and 2 otherss1996 MLD 971 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Wahid Bux And 2 Other1996 MLD 971 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 949 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, and others1996 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, And Other1996 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1996 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had directed WAPDA to pay Rs. 12,000 as compensation for land acquired in 1968. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, sought an order for payment at current market rates. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could re-determine the market value of land acquired decades prior, or direct the Land Acquisition Officer to do so, when the original compensation had already been determined under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court could not determine market value in constitutional jurisdiction, nor could it order the Land Acquisition Officer to revisit a determination long settled under the Land Acquisition Act. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was time-barred by nine days without sufficient cause for condonation, and the original writ petition itself could have been dismissed on the grounds of laches given the significant delay between the 1968 acquisition and the 1991 filing.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction determine the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is a writ petition challenging land compensation amounts maintainable after a significant delay amounting to laches?
- Can a court direct a Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine compensation for land acquired decades earlier?
- Shah Muhammad and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court of Baluchistan. The petitioners were arrested in connection with a case involving stolen vehicles and forged documents, based on a confessional statement made by a co-accused who identified the petitioners as recipients of stolen vehicles. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds that the only evidence against them was the co-accused's confession and that a co-accused found in the vehicle had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that at the pre-trial stage, the confessional statement provided sufficient prima facie evidence of a regular scheme involving the petitioners in car-lifting and the receipt of stolen property. The Court affirmed that where there is prima facie evidence of a systematic criminal enterprise, the mere absence of other evidence at the initial stage does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the allegations involve organized criminal activity.
Questions settled- Does a confessional statement of a co-accused constitute sufficient material to deny bail at the initial stage of investigation?
- Is the principle of consistency applicable to bail applications when the roles of the accused are distinct?
- Does the mere absence of additional evidence beyond a co-accused's confession entitle an accused to bail?
- Shah Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Hussain and another1996 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously refused leave to appeal in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners originally filed a suit for pre-emption in 1982, which was decreed in 1987. However, the appellate court set aside this decree, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Said Kamal's case regarding the limitation on pre-emption decrees after July 31, 1986. Following the enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the petitioners sought revival of their suit under Section 35 of that Act, but their application was rejected by the lower courts. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined whether the petitioners were denied a fair hearing and whether their case was correctly dismissed in light of the applicable law. The Court held that because the suit was pending during the relevant period and the application for revival was timely, the matter required deeper consideration, particularly regarding the performance of 'Talab-e-Ishhad' in the presence of witnesses. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous dismissal order to allow for a full hearing on these contentions.
Questions settled- Can a suit for pre-emption pending between August 1, 1986, and March 28, 1990, be revived under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
- Is the performance of 'Talab-e-Ishhad' in the presence of two truthful witnesses a matter requiring in-depth judicial consideration in pre-emption cases?
- Shah Jahan vs Dr. Adnan and anothers1996 MLD 934 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Jahan vs Dr. Adnan And Another1996 MLD 934 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Behram And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 594 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Alam vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application and a cancellation application regarding co-accused in a criminal case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, concerning the alleged recovery of 63 kilograms of heroin from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, declining to interfere as the petitioner was caught red-handed with a huge quantity of heroin, the case falls within the prohibitory clause, and the delay in trial could not be attributed to the prosecution without supporting interim orders. The key principle laid down is that an accused seeking bail on the ground of delay must place on record interim orders to establish that the delay is not attributable to him.
Questions settled- Does a case involving the recovery of a huge quantity of heroin fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration when interim trial orders are withheld to determine responsibility for the delay?
- Can bail be granted where the accused was caught red-handed with narcotics and no proof of unjustified trial delay by the prosecution is placed on record?
- Shagofta Parveen and others vs Chairman, Board of Education, Multan and others1996 CLC 536 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
- Shafiqur Rehman vs The State1996 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained given the defense's contention that the eye-witnesses, being related to the deceased, were 'interested witnesses' whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful and lacked corroboration. The Court examined the credibility of the eye-witnesses, the promptness of the First Information Report (FIR), and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution's case was corroborated by the medical evidence and the prompt filing of the FIR. The Court held that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not automatically render their testimony unreliable, provided their presence is credible and corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, the appellant's abscondence following the incident served as additional incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the evidence sufficiently connected the appellant to the crime.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is the prompt lodging of an FIR considered a factor in establishing the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Can the abscondence of an accused be used as a factor to support a conviction in a murder case?
- Does the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the presence of an eye-witness at the scene warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Shafi Muhammad vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI at1996 PLC 446 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad And Another vs Noor Ahmad And Other(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 62) · Board of Revenue · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
- Shafaqat Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
- Shafaqat Ali Alias Fatta vs The State1996 MLD 909 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Shad Gul vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
- Shabid Islam vs NIRC No. 1(K.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 158) · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Iqbal vs Messrs Sindh Engineering (Private) Limited, Karachi1996 PLC 294 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed, Etc , vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 437 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad alias Shera and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 625 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1794 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
- SH. Umar Draz Versus The State SH. Umar Draz vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 622 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
- Sh. Rashid Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. Rashid Ahmad vs The Election Tribunal and another1996 SCMR 1538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the word "decision" as used in Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, specifically whether it encompasses interim orders alongside final decisions and permits an appeal to the Supreme Court. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the operation of the impugned order should be suspended for the time being, thereby allowing a full review of whether interim orders fall within the scope of the statutory provision governing appeals.
Questions settled- Does the word 'decision' in section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 include an interim order?
- Can an aggrieved party file an appeal before the Supreme Court against an interim order passed under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Sh. Muhammad RAMZAN/Defendant vs Cotton Export Corporation1996 CLC 935 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Akram and 11 others vs Muhammad Iqbal and 18 others1996 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order regarding the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether service of notice on a counsel, whose power of attorney remained on record despite an informal intimation that the client had retrieved the brief, constitutes valid service on the party under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that service on a counsel is deemed service on the party unless the counsel has formally sought and obtained the court's permission to withdraw their power of attorney in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Court held that the legal presumption under the relevant rules of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory to ensure the efficient administration of justice, preventing counsel from unilaterally avoiding notice. Consequently, because the petitioners' counsel had not filed a formal application to withdraw, the notice served upon him remained valid and effectual, and the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was legally sound.
Questions settled- Does service of notice on a counsel constitute valid service on the party under Order III Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a counsel required to obtain formal court permission to withdraw their power of attorney to cease being the agent for service of notice?
- Can a party claim lack of notice if their counsel was served but failed to appear at the hearing?
- Sh. Abdul Rashid, Magistrate Section 30,(Judicial), Okara vs The Reporting Officer and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 930 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- Seven Up Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan Etc.(PTCL 1996 CL. 325) · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Management Committee, Labour Colony, Nowshera and another vs Nasir Khan and 3 others1996 PLC 503 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Government of Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism1996 PLC (C.S.) 664, 1996 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent's service appeal and set aside the departmental order directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.39,306 out of his gratuity. The core legal question concerns the legality of recovering alleged financial liabilities from a retired civil servant's gratuity without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings or providing an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly set aside the recovery order and directed the department to proceed in accordance with the law to determine liability, as no proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules had been initiated against the respondent. The key principle laid down is that recovery of financial liability from a retired employee's gratuity cannot be effected without proper departmental proceedings and adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Can a departmental authority recover alleged financial liabilities from a retired civil servant's gratuity without initiating formal proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- Whether an opportunity of hearing must be provided to a civil servant before determining his liability for recovery from retirement benefits?
- Does the failure to conduct proper disciplinary proceedings render an order of recovery from gratuity unlawful?
- Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department vs Miss1996 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health Department, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed a service appeal and set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondent, a Nursing Superintendent, who had been retired under section 12(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could be compulsorily retired in the public interest based on uncommunicated adverse remarks and without objective justification despite a long unblemished career. The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated adverse remarks cannot be treated as adverse and rendered ineffective, and that the power to retire a civil servant in the public interest under section 12 requires objective reasons and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court laid down the principle that uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be used against a civil servant, and compulsory retirement in the public interest must be supported by valid, objective material rather than unblemished or uncommunicated records.
Questions settled- Can uncommunicated adverse remarks be used to justify the compulsory retirement of a civil servant?
- Whether the power to compulsorily retire a civil servant in the public interest under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is unbridled?
- Is an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal within time if reckoned from the date of communication of the departmental rejection letter?
- Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs1996 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the Government of N.W.F.P. challenged the legality of an amended black-warrant issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi, directing the execution of a condemned prisoner by way of Qisas. The core legal question was whether a convict tried and sentenced through ordinary procedures up to the Supreme Court could have their death sentence executed as Qisas rather than as Ta'zir, absent compliance with the strict procedural requirements of Islamic law such as Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood. The Peshawar High Court held that since the trial, appeals, and final dismissal before the Supreme Court were conducted entirely under the procedure for Ta'zir without objection, the subsequent issuance of a black-warrant for execution by Qisas was a patent error. The Court laid down that where a trial has proceeded under Ta'zir and attained finality accordingly, the sentence must be treated and executed as Ta'zir under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and setting aside the amended warrant, restored the original execution warrant issued under sections 368 and 381 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether a convict tried and sentenced under ordinary procedures can subsequently be subjected to execution by Qisas without complying with Islamic law prerequisites such as Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood?
- Does a trial conducted entirely under Ta'zir procedure up to the Supreme Court render a subsequent black-warrant for execution by Qisas unlawful?
- Under which clause of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a conviction maintained when the trial proceedings followed Ta'zir throughout?
- Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. Zakat/Social. Welfare1996 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, reinstating a civil servant. The respondent was appointed as a salesman on a temporary basis by the competent authority, but his services were subsequently terminated on the ground that his appointment was irregular and violated Rule 10(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989. The Service Tribunal accepted the civil servant's appeal, holding that procedural lapses committed by the appointing authority could not penalize the employee. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, ruling that the petitioners, having themselves appointed the qualified respondent in violation of procedural rules, could not turn around and take benefit of their own lapses to terminate his services. The Court affirmed that an appointing authority cannot rely on its own procedural irregularities to dismiss an otherwise qualified employee.
Questions settled- Can a government department terminate an employee's services on the ground of an irregular appointment resulting from its own procedural lapses?
- Whether an otherwise qualified civil servant appointed by a competent authority can be made to suffer due to procedural violations committed by the appointing authority?
- Can an authority take advantage of its own non-compliance with appointment rules to dismiss a temporary employee?
- Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. and another vs Muhammad Nawaz1996 PLD Supreme Court 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 10-4-1995, which allowed writ petitions filed by respondents. The respondents, serving as Work Munshies, completed ten years of service and sought promotion to Sub-Engineer (BPS-11). After missing the initial departmental examination due to a lack of notice from the department despite having communicated their intent to appear, the competent Secretary ordered a second examination to be held after a short interval. The respondents passed this examination and were duly promoted. Subsequently, the department cancelled the second examination on the ground that promotion examinations could only be held once a year in November/December, and reverted the respondents. The core legal question concerned the validity of cancelling a duly authorized second departmental examination and subsequent promotions when the candidates were initially deprived of an opportunity through no fault of their own. The Supreme Court held that since the department failed to inform eligible candidates of the first examination, holding a second examination and promoting the respondents upon success was lawful, fair, and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a government department can cancel a departmental examination held for employees who were not informed of the initial examination through no fault of their own?
- Does the failure of a department to notify eligible employees about a promotion examination justify holding a second examination?
- Whether a promotion order based on a validly held second departmental examination can be legally withdrawn on the ground that such examinations are restricted to once a year?
- Searle Pakistan Limited, S.I.T.E., Karachi vs Nighat Mateen and another1996 PLC 619 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
- SDO/Assistant Engineer, Provincial Building Sub-Division,1996 PLC (C.S.) 238 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
- Sayed Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 433 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
- Sauliheen and 2 others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated criminal matter arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and sentences of the petitioners under sections 302/34 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and assault, while dismissing the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the weapon usage and participation of multiple accused, and whether sufficient grounds existed to condone a 79-day delay in filing the petition for enhancement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version as sharp-edged wounds could indeed be caused by spears, and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Furthermore, the court held that the explanation provided for the prolonged delay in filing the complainant's petition was unsatisfactory. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding ocular and medical consistency in criminal trials will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse.
Questions settled- Whether medical evidence regarding injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons is inconsistent with the use of spears?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court be interfered with when supported by ocular and medical testimony?
- Whether illness and ignorance of limitation periods constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a substantial delay in filing a criminal petition for sentence enhancement?
- Saswad Mali Sahakari $Akhar Karkhana, Ltd vs Union of India1996 P.C.T.L.R. 551 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-11-11Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Shah vs Messrs B.P. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and another1996 PLC 261 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz vs The State1996 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds of being declared innocent in successive police investigations and because the firearm injury attributed to him was on a non-vital part of a witness's body. However, the case was subsequently transferred to the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, who cancelled the petitioner's bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider that the case prima facie appeared triable by an ordinary court rather than a Special Court, as well as the petitioner's exoneration during successive police investigations. Finding these points to require further consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the petitioner to interim bail.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing bail should be granted where the case was prima facie triable by an ordinary court but transferred to a Special Court?
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing bail without considering the accused's declaration of innocence in successive police investigations?
- Can interim bail be granted by the Supreme Court upon granting leave to appeal when jurisdictional and factual matters require further consideration?
- Sarfraz Khan vs The State and 2 others1996 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the respondents under Sections 302/34, 392, and 404 PPC. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value and standards of proof required for extra-judicial confessions, circumstantial evidence of 'last seen', and recoveries in a murder trial based purely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's acquittal. The Supreme Court held that extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring three-fold proof: that it was made, made voluntarily, and made truly. It observed that it was improbable for the accused to confess before a stranger unable to help them. Further, the 'last seen' evidence was incomplete, failing to form a continuous chain excluding all hypotheses of innocence, and the interference with an acquittal judgment is unwarranted unless the High Court's findings are perverse or unsupported by record.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to establish an extra-judicial confession as a basis for conviction in a criminal trial?
- Under what circumstances can 'last seen' circumstantial evidence be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder?
- What are the principles governing interference by the Supreme Court in an appeal against a High Court's judgment of acquittal?
- Sarfraz and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz And 2 Other vs Mian Sikandar Hayat, Judge Special Court, Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Lahore, Division, Lahore And The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 620 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sardara vs The State1996 MLD 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
- Sardar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- Sardar Shah vs Riaz Hussain Shah1996 MLD 863 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs Muhammad Israr and 3 others1996 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Sardar Muhammad, seeking enhancement of sentences of the respondents who were convicted under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi, and sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment along with whipping and fine. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the term already undergone, alongside reducing the whipping and default fine periods. The core legal questions concern the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the appeal without filing a prior revision, and whether reducing the substantive imprisonment to a mere 56 days was just and proper under the circumstances. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, noting the points requiring deeper consideration.
Questions settled- Whether the petitioner has a locus standi for filing an appeal for enhancement of sentence while he did not file any revision in the Federal Shariat Court?
- Whether the reduction of sentence of imprisonment from 12 years rigorous imprisonment to a period already undergone was just and proper in the circumstances of the case?
- Sardar Muhammad Tariq and another vs Special Judge of the Court1996 P Cr. L J 58 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Razaq and anothers vs Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qaiyyum and another1996 CLC 1675 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Nazir Khan vs Javed Iqbal and 6 others1996 P Cr. L J 569 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a consolidated order of the Shariat Court confirming bail granted to certain respondents and dismissing the appellant's application to summon another respondent who was discharged by the police under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the propriety of granting bail to accused persons with specific roles or conflicting medical evidence, and whether a trial court can decline to summon an accused placed in column No. 2 by the police on the ground that the application is premature pending recording of initial evidence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the discretion exercised by the lower courts in granting bail was neither arbitrary nor perverse and thus warranted no interference, but ruled that the lower courts erred in deferring the decision on summoning the discharged accused. The Court laid down the principle that courts are not bound by police opinions and must independently examine the record—including the F.I.R., statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and police reports—to decide whether to summon an accused placed in column No. 2, rather than dismissing such applications as premature.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with the grant of bail by lower courts when the discretion exercised is neither perverse nor arbitrary?
- Is a trial court bound by the opinion of the investigating agency when deciding whether to summon an accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan?
- Can a trial court dismiss an application to summon an accused discharged under Section 169 Cr.P.C. as being premature before recording prosecution evidence?
- Sardar Muhammad Jaffar Khan Leghari And Other vs Baloch1stanK.L.R 19% Revenue Cases 167 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad1996 PLC (C.S.) 618 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad and 21 others vs Faqir Muhammad and 4 others1996 CLC 916 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration of ownership based on a registered Will. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, particularly constructive res judicata, given prior proceedings before the High Court and Supreme Court concerning inheritance under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, and whether a Muslim Will relating to property not in existence at the time of its execution but acquired before the testator's death was valid. The High Court held that the claim based on the Will was neither actually nor constructively in issue in the previous constitutional and Supreme Court proceedings, as such complex questions of title are not typically adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, the principle of res judicata was inapplicable. The Court further held that a Muslim Will is valid even if the property is acquired after the Will's execution but before the testator's death, provided it does not exceed one-third of the estate. The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' findings and decreeing the petitioners' suit for 1/3rd share of the land under the Will.
Questions settled- Can a claim based on a Will be barred by constructive res judicata if it was not explicitly raised or decided in prior constitutional or Supreme Court proceedings?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to complex questions of title that are not typically adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a Muslim Will valid for property that was not in existence at the time of its execution but was acquired by the testator before their death?
- What is the maximum share of an estate that can be bequeathed under Muslim Law?
- Can a Will be made in favour of legal heirs without the consent of other legal heirs under Muslim Law?
- Sardar Imdad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 272 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. registered under terrorist and murder provisions at Police Station Drighpur, District Shikarpur. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be granted in matters falling under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, and whether the applicant made out a case for anticipatory bail based on alibi, mala fides, and potential humiliation. The Court held that while the power to grant pre-arrest bail is inbuilt under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is available in matters covered by the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, the applicant failed to make out a case for the same. The Court laid down that specific role assignment, the nature of the crime involving multiple casualties, the inability to establish a clear alibi at the pre-trial stage, and the fact that the applicant had prior arrest history negating the prospect of undue humiliation justified the dismissal of the pre-arrest bail application and the recall of interim bail.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the power to grant pre-arrest bail in matters covered by the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Can a plea of alibi be conclusively determined at the pre-trial stage for the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Does a person with a prior arrest history suffer undue humiliation upon subsequent arrest for a criminal offense so as to warrant pre-arrest bail?
- Whether alleged ulterior motive for criminal implication can be construed as a valid ground for establishing mala fides in pre-arrest bail applications?
- Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Legari vs Province of Punjab and others1996 CLC 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Muhammad Din alias Juby and 3 others1996 MLD 80 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Muhammad Din Alias Juby And 3 Other1996 MLD 80 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Judge Special Court, Multan and anothers1996 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Judge Special Court, Multan And Another1996 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali and others vs Additional Secretary Home and Ta1996 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional Petition regarding a pre-emption claim. The dispute originated from a 1974 land sale, with subsequent litigation initiated by the pre-emptor's successor. The core legal question was whether the requirement to make 'Talabs' (demands) under Islamic Law is a necessary condition for a pre-emption suit, even in areas where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, had not been extended. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that the requirement of making 'Talabs' is a sine qua non for the enforcement of the right of pre-emption recognized by Muslim Law. The Court clarified that this principle applies regardless of whether the claim is brought under statutory pre-emption law or under general Muslim Law. Consequently, the failure of the petitioners to make the requisite demands under Islamic Law effectively extinguished their pre-emptive rights, rendering the High Court's dismissal of their petition legally sound despite the non-extension of the 1987 Act to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas.
Questions settled- Is the making of 'Talabs' a necessary condition for the enforcement of a right of pre-emption under Muslim Law?
- Does the requirement to make 'Talabs' apply to pre-emption claims in areas where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, is not extended?
- Does the failure to make 'Talabs' extinguish the right of pre-emption?
- Sardar Abdur Rehman vs Fida Hussain1996 CLC 1571 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a civil matter where the District Judge, Mansehra, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 22,000 against the appellant under the summary procedure of Order 37, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court refused the appellant's petition for leave to defend solely because the accompanying affidavit was not attested. The core legal question was whether a court, when exercising summary powers, should reject a petition for leave to defend on a technicality such as an unattested affidavit without granting an opportunity for rectification. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste, noting that while summary procedures aim for speedy justice, they must not result in the denial of substantial rights. The Court ruled that the trial judge should have exercised discretion under Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to allow the defendant time to attest the affidavit. Consequently, the decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on the merits of the leave to defend petition.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a petition for leave to defend in a summary suit solely due to the lack of attestation on an affidavit?
- Does a trial court have the power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant time for the attestation of an affidavit in a summary suit?
- Should judicial discretion be exercised liberally in summary proceedings to prevent the denial of substantial rights on technical grounds?
- Sarbland and 19 others vs Ghulam Fatima and 6 others1996 MLD 948 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sarbland And 19 Others vs Ghulam Fatima And 6 Other1996 MLD 948 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sarang, and Pehlwan vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 65) · Board of Revenue · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Sar Zaman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 693 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sana Ullah and anothers vs Muhammad Manzoor and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and cancellation of a subsequent collusive decree. The plaintiffs (respondents) claimed that the first appellant executed an agreement of sale and a receipt for full consideration, but retained the original agreement, leaving them with only a photocopy. The first appellant denied executing the documents or possessing the original. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the execution of the agreement and receipt was legally proved. The Court observed that the original agreement was not produced, and the handwriting expert confirmed that the receipt did not bear the first appellant's signature. Crucially, the two available attesting witnesses to the documents were never examined by the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that when execution is denied, it must be proved by calling the attesting witnesses or those in whose presence the documents were executed. Speculation by the High Court that the witnesses were 'won over' was unsupported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent decrees.
Questions settled- Can the execution of a disputed document be held as proved if the available attesting witnesses are not examined by the party relying on the document?
- Whether a court can presume that attesting witnesses have been won over by the opposing party in the absence of any supporting evidence on the record?
- Is a decree for specific performance sustainable when the original agreement of sale is not produced and its execution is denied and unproved?
- Samual and others vs Piara Masih and others1996 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
- Samiullah and another vs Fazle Malik and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the concurrent orders of the lower courts non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground of the bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 21 of the N.-W.F.P. Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, and remanded the suit for recording evidence after the filing of written statements. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is completely ousted under Section 21 of the Ordinance where the legality and mala fides of an administrative order of lease cancellation are challenged. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that even where the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in favor of Special Tribunals, Civil Courts remain competent to examine whether the acts of such forums are in accordance with law, illegal, or mala fide. The key principle laid down is that the determination of the ouster of civil jurisdiction based on statutory bars often necessitates the filing of written statements and the recording of evidence to resolve controversial facts regarding whether the special authority acted within its legal bounds.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is completely barred under Section 21 of the N.-W.F.P. Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, when an order passed by the Chief Administrator Auqaf is challenged as illegal or mala fide?
- Can a Civil Court examine the acts of a Special Tribunal to determine whether they are in accordance with law despite a statutory ouster of jurisdiction?
- Does the question of the existence of civil court jurisdiction depend upon the resolution of controversial facts requiring the filing of written statements and recording of evidence?
- Salman Ahmed Ansari vs The State1996 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a human rights petition registered by the Chief Justice of Pakistan upon receiving a copy of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister. The petitioner alleged police inaction, executive failure, and partiality regarding the investigation into the kidnapping and murder of his son. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether appropriate statutory procedures and actions under criminal law were being pursued by the law enforcement agencies. Reports submitted by the police authorities and the Additional Advocate-General revealed that an FIR under Sections 506, 364, 34, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had been registered against accused persons identified during the investigation, and that formal chargesheet had been submitted. However, progress was delayed due to the accused persons absconding. The Supreme Court held that since the necessary statutory provisions were complied with and the legal machinery had been set into motion, no further administrative or judicial directions were required under human rights jurisdiction, ordering the file closed.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings in a human rights petition regarding police inaction should be closed once statutory criminal proceedings have been properly initiated?
- Does the absconding of named accused persons warrant keeping a human rights petition pending when formal investigation and chargesheet have been completed?
- Salma and anothers vs Manzoor Hussain and another1996 CLC 623 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by two female plaintiffs seeking possession of land sold to the respondents. The trial court initially decreed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had established their superior right of pre-emption and performed the necessary Talbs. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the essential Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad were not legally established. The core legal question was whether a husband or relative could validly perform Talb-i-Muwathibat on behalf of female pre-emptors. The High Court upheld the appellate court's dismissal, holding that under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, Talb-i-Muwathibat constitutes an immediate demand that must be made personally by the pre-emptor in the meeting where they learn of the sale. The Court ruled that the Act makes no distinction between genders and provides no provision allowing a third party to perform this demand on behalf of a pre-emptor. Consequently, the failure of the plaintiffs to personally perform the Talb extinguished their right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Can a husband or relative validly perform Talb-i-Muwathibat on behalf of a female pre-emptor?
- Is the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat a personal requirement for a pre-emptor under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- Does the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 allow for gender-based distinctions in the exercise of pre-emption rights?
- Salim Sozer and another vs Abdul Jabbar Qureshi and 2 others1996 CLC 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
- Salehoon vs Nazir Ahmad1996 MLD 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ullah vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeals regarding seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan. The petitioner, initially promoted as an Assistant Superintendent of Police, claimed seniority over the private respondents in the rank of Deputy Inspector-General (BPS-19) based on an earlier gradation list and a Cabinet Secretariat letter reckoning his seniority from the date his junior assumed charge. The core legal question was whether the competent authority was legally empowered to convert the respondents' earlier supersessions into deferments, thereby restoring their original inter se seniority, and whether a published seniority list confers an indefeasible vested right. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority possesses the power under the applicable civil service rules to convert supersession into deferment, and that a seniority list by itself confers no vested right unless backed by a valid, competent order. The court laid down the principle that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to protect an erroneous or unauthorized alteration of seniority that prejudices officers who were historically senior in the lower grade.
Questions settled- Does a published seniority list by itself confer a vested right upon a civil servant?
- Can the competent authority convert a civil servant's previous supersession into deferment for the purpose of fixing seniority?
- Is the doctrine of locus poenitentiae applicable to prevent the correction of an erroneous seniority ranking?
- Salamat vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 316 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali vs Chairman Municipal Committee EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Salahuddin vs The State1996 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that denied post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a juvenile accused of involvement in a car-snatching incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was thirteen years old at the time of the alleged offense, was entitled to bail given the complainant's testimony regarding his specific role. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, specifically the complainant's cross-examination, which indicated that the individuals who remained with the car did not play an active role in the commission of the offense. Furthermore, the Court found that the High Court had misread the evidence by attributing the act of driving the car to the petitioner, a fact not supported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should be granted when the prosecution's evidence, upon careful scrutiny, fails to establish a prima facie case of active participation by the accused.
Questions settled- Does a misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding the role of an accused justify the Supreme Court's intervention in a bail matter?
- Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail when the complainant's testimony indicates they did not play an active role in the commission of the offense?
- Sakhi Rehmatullah vs The State1996 MLD 495 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- Sakhi Akbar vs Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting1996 PLC (C.S.) 1106 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →