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.
- Sajjan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 43 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary1996 PLC (C.S.) 185 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by Sajjad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 7/96 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the arresting officer, who was also the complainant and recovery witness, proceeded to conduct the investigation himself without proper authorization, causing potential prejudice to the case. The Lahore High Court held that since the Investigating Officer was also the complainant and recovery witness, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the combination of complainant, recovery witness, and investigating officer in a single police official without proper authorization brings the prosecution's case within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted when the complainant is also the investigating officer and recovery witness?
- Does the investigation of a case by a C.I.A. staff member without proper entrustment by the District Superintendent of Police prejudice the prosecution case?
- Is a case open to further inquiry when all prosecution witnesses are police officials and the investigator is also the complainant?
- Sajjad Hussain Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain Sajid vs WAPDA through Chairman, Lahore and another1996 PLC 12 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain Alias Poni vs The State1996 MLD 643 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-29Read full judgment →
- Sajjad alias. Sajju vs The State1996 MLD 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Alias Sajju vs The State1996 MLD 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 11 others1996 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning seniority and promotion to Grade-19. The core legal question revolves around whether a previous judgment of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court could be reopened or reviewed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud, where the petitioner had earlier been superseded by the Central Selection Board due to suspension and subsequently promoted. The Supreme Court held that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the Court proceeded correctly on the basis of the Central Selection Board's refusal to clear the petitioner at the relevant time, and no error or fraud justified initiating subsequent review proceedings under section 12(2). The key principle laid down is that concurrent or final judicial orders affirming a supersession cannot be reopened under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code, in the absence of established fraud or material misrepresentation in obtaining those judgments, though departmental remedies, if otherwise available under the law, remain unaffected.
Questions settled- Whether an earlier judgment of the service tribunal and the supreme court can be reviewed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud based on a supersession by the central selection board?
- Does the dismissal of a petition seeking review of a service matter preclude the petitioner from seeking relief at the departmental level if otherwise entitled under the law?
- Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad ,1996 PLC (C.S.) 1097 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad alias Nona vs The State1996 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's subsequent bail application. The core legal question was whether a fresh bail application on a new ground, namely subsequent illness supported by a jail medical certificate, could be dismissed merely as a review of a previous bail cancellation order without considering the new ground. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a fresh bail application based on fresh grounds must be considered on its own merits rather than treated as a review of an earlier order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision taking into consideration the medical report of the jail doctor.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent bail application on fresh grounds can be dismissed as a review of a previous bail cancellation order?
- Can a fresh medical report from a jail doctor constitute a fresh ground for bail?
- How should a court handle a bail application based on new circumstances arising after the dismissal of an earlier petition?
- Sajid Kareem vs Government of Punjab and others1996 PLD Lahore 575 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
- Sajawal vs Mst. Saubia Hamid and another1996 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a revision petition regarding a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of a land sale. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a suit for declaration with consequential relief when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, and whether a Power of Attorney requires attestation by marginal witnesses when its execution is admitted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that a suit for declaration with consequential relief is not maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Furthermore, the Court clarified that where the execution of a Power of Attorney is admitted and the document does not legally require attestation, the non-production of marginal witnesses does not invalidate the document. The Court found no misreading of evidence or legal infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings, emphasizing that such findings are generally not subject to interference.
Questions settled- Is a suit for declaration with consequential relief maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land?
- Does a Power of Attorney require the production of marginal witnesses if its execution is admitted by the principal?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Saima Enterprises vs Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports), Custom1996 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Khan vs Ghulam Asghar and others1996 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession by pre-emption. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad as prescribed under Section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the District Judge reversed this, finding that the petitioner failed to perform the necessary Talabs within the statutory period. The High Court affirmed this dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's pleadings and evidence contained material contradictions regarding the date of knowledge of the transaction. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to perform Talb-i-Ishhad within the mandatory two-week period following the knowledge of the sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the right of pre-emption is strictly conditional upon the precise and timely performance of the statutory Talabs, and any failure to adhere to these procedural requirements extinguishes the right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does a failure to perform Talb-i-Ishhad within the statutory period extinguish the right of pre-emption?
- Is the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad strictly required to be in accordance with the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
- Can a pre-emptor succeed in a suit for pre-emption if there are material contradictions in the pleadings regarding the date of knowledge of the transaction?
- Saif-Ud-Din M. Chana, Economic Director vs Associated Press of Pakistan through Director-General, Islamabad1996 PLC 8 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Saif Ullah and anothers vs Muhammad Riaz and 18 others1996 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- Saif Ullah And Another vs Muhammad Riaz And 18 Other1996 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- Saif Shah and 2 others vs Gulnaz Bokhari and anothers1996 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Saif Shah And 2 Others vs Gulnaz Bokhari And Another1996 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Said Muhammad vs Abdur Rehman1996 MLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which decreed the respondent's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29-1-1976 regarding land temporarily allotted to the appellant as a refugee. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, holding that time was the essence of the contract and the respondent failed to pay the balance amount by 1-5-1976. The core legal questions involved whether time was of the essence of the contract and whether the vendee was under a legal obligation to pay the balance price when the vendor's title to the property was still imperfect. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that time was not the essence of the contract, and that under Section 51 of the Contract Act 1872, a promisee is not bound to perform his reciprocal promise unless the promisor is ready and willing to perform theirs. The key principle laid down is that where a vendor has not perfected his title to the property by the stipulated date, the vendee's failure to pay the balance consideration on that date does not constitute a breach of contract.
Questions settled- Whether the mere fixation of a date for the payment of the balance amount makes time the essence of the contract in a non-commercial agreement to sell?
- Is a vendee under a legal obligation to pay the balance consideration when the vendor has not yet perfected his title to the disputed property?
- Does a vendee's failure to pay the balance amount on a stipulated date constitute a breach of contract if the vendor is not in a position to transfer the property on that date?
- When does the period of limitation start for instituting a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell where title is perfected subsequently?
- Said Hussain Khan vs Muhammad Hussain Khan and another1996 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 25 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
- Said Akbar and another vs Gul Akbar and another1996 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, with leave of the Court, challenged the Peshawar High Court's order rejecting the appellants' bail application in a murder case. The appellants sought bail primarily on the plea of alibi, contending they were incarcerated in Charsadda Jail during the incident, supported by jail records and FIRs. The core legal question was whether the plea of alibi, when raised at the bail stage, necessitates the grant of bail despite the existence of incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the law permits a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage, including a plea of alibi, the court is not bound to grant bail if the prosecution's case is supported by strong evidence, such as the presence of injured eye-witnesses and the occurrence of the incident in broad daylight. The Court affirmed that it generally avoids interfering with High Court bail orders when the trial is imminent and evidence is about to be recorded, to prevent premature appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be considered during the bail stage in a capital case?
- Does the existence of a plea of alibi automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's bail order when the trial is ripe for the recording of evidence?
- Sahibzada Tariqullah vs Haji Amanullah Khan and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Election Tribunal regarding the Provincial Assembly election for Constituency FP 73 Dir-I held on October 9, 1993. The returned candidate, Sahibzada Tariqullah, was declared disqualified under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 99(1-A)(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, on the ground that he had served as an Administrator in the Afghan Refugees Organization (A.R.O.), a body controlled by the Government, within the preceding two years. The Election Tribunal declared the entire election void and ordered a fresh election. Sahibzada Tariqullah appealed against his disqualification, while the runner-up, Haji Amanullah Khan, appealed seeking to be declared elected in his place. The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record sufficiently established that A.R.O. was a body controlled by the Government, as its officers were appointed and promoted by the Government, ex-Pakistan leaves were sanctioned by the Governor, and salaries were paid through the Accountant-General. The Court further held that the runner-up could not be declared elected because the disqualification of the returned candidate was not notorious so as to treat votes cast for him as thrown away, and the presence of other candidates precluded such a declaration. Both appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Afghan Refugees Organization is a body controlled by the Government for the purposes of disqualification under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution?
- Does regulatory supervision of an organization by the government amount to government control under election disqualification laws?
- Whether a runner-up candidate can be declared elected upon the disqualification of the returned candidate when the disqualification was not notorious?
- Is it necessary for a candidate to be a civil servant to attract disqualification under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution?
- Sahibzada Abdul Latif vs Sardar Khan and others1996 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had ordered a re-election for the post of Chairman, District Council, Musa Khail, following a dispute over invalid votes during the 1992 Local Council Elections. The appellant and respondent No.1 contested the election, where the Presiding Officer declared one of the appellant's votes invalid due to a non-standard mark and subsequently drew lots resulting in a tie-break for respondent No.1. The election tribunal and High Court found the appellant's vote was wrongly excluded, yet the High Court ordered re-election. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in ordering re-election instead of declaring the appellant elected. The Supreme Court held that technicalities should not defeat the voter's intention, and since the appellant's vote was validly cast and secured a majority of seven votes against six, the appellant ought to have been declared elected. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the re-election order and declaring the appellant as elected.
Questions settled- Whether a ballot paper can be declared invalid merely because the voter used a mark other than a cross-mark?
- Can technicalities defeat the intention of a voter and their right to franchise in election matters?
- Whether the High Court was justified in ordering a re-election instead of declaring the candidate with the majority of valid votes as elected?
- Are the statutory provisions regarding the marking of ballot papers to be construed as mandatory or directory?
- Sahibdaza Muhammad Salim and anothers vs Mst. Bibi Zuhra and others1996 MLD 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
- Sahibdaza Muhammad Salim And Another vs Mst. Bibi Zuhra And Other1996 MLD 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
- Sahib Gul and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 552 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
- Safia Bibi vs The Superintendent of Camp_Central Jail, Lahore and another1996 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the release of the petitioner's son, an under-trial prisoner, on the grounds that his detention was illegal due to procedural lapses in obtaining judicial remand. The core legal question was whether a prior illegal or irregular remand order could be cured by a subsequent valid remand order, thereby rendering a habeas corpus petition infructuous. The Court held that the scope of Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is limited to determining the legality of detention at the time of the court's order. If a valid remand order exists at the time of the hearing, the court cannot order release based on prior procedural irregularities. The ratio established is that a subsequent valid judicial remand order, passed after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, cures earlier defects in remand procedures. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the detent was currently in legal custody. The Court also issued directives to police authorities regarding the mandatory compliance with investigation timelines under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the production of prisoners in court.
Questions settled- Can a High Court order the release of a detainee under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if a valid remand order exists at the time of the court's decision?
- Does a subsequent valid judicial remand order cure prior procedural irregularities in the detention of an accused?
- Is a trial Magistrate competent to remand an accused to judicial custody under Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without first taking cognizance of the case?
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the legality of detention?
- Saffar and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 364 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
- Safeer Hussain vs Muhammad Jahangir and 3 others1996 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were initially convicted for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence or if the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while the High Court made a minor error regarding the statements of certain witnesses, this did not warrant reversing the acquittal. The Court held that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to significant discrepancies between the medical evidence (indicating four shots) and the prosecution version (alleging two shots), the unexplained delay in recording witness statements, and the status of the witnesses as chance witnesses who failed to provide credible reasons for their presence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless there is a compelling misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal if there is a minor misreading of evidence that does not affect the overall conclusion?
- Does the presence of significant discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
- Are witnesses who fail to provide a convincing explanation for their presence at the scene of a crime considered chance witnesses?
- Safdar Hussain vs The State1996 MLD 757 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-07Read full judgment →
- Safdar Hayat and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed an acquittal order passed by the trial court, convicting the appellants for murder and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting the appellants, given the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the trial court's acquittal was perverse and based on a significant misreading of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the testimony of injured witnesses, whose presence at the scene was indisputable, was highly credible and sufficient to prove the prosecution's case. The Court established the principle that minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate the core truthfulness of a prosecution version. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court is duty-bound to interfere with an acquittal when the trial court's reasoning is shocking and ignores substantial evidence. The appellants' own admission of the occurrence further corroborated their presence at the scene, rendering the trial court’s acquittal legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are based on a misreading of evidence?
- Is the testimony of injured witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction despite minor contradictions?
- Does the admission of an occurrence by the accused in their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, corroborate their presence at the scene?
- Safdar Butcher vs Khawaja Per Vezuddin Butt1996 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali Malik vs The Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Court against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition regarding the cancellation of the allotment of a government quarter on the ground that the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service and the remedy lay before the Service Tribunal. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether such allotment constituted a term of service in light of prior jurisprudence. During the proceedings, it was brought to the attention of the Court that the appellant had subsequently been allotted a new quarter, a fact acknowledged by the appellant through an occupation report and a subsequent letter to the Estate Officer, though the appellant claimed he was made to sign the documents under pressure and had not yet occupied the premises. The Supreme Court held that the appellant may occupy the newly allotted quarter if he had not already done so, but concluded that the appeal had lost its significance and consequently dismissed it as having become infructuous.
Questions settled- Whether the allotment of residential quarters by the government to civil servants constitutes a term and condition of service?
- What is the effect on an appeal when the grievance regarding the subject matter has been redressed through a subsequent allotment during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Safdar Ali and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 1695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the convictions and sentences of three appellants for murder and attempted murder under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the testimony of interested eyewitnesses, which required independent corroboration, was sufficiently supported by circumstantial evidence, specifically the immediate arrest of the appellants at the crime scene and the recovery of weapons matching ballistic reports. The Supreme Court held that while the eyewitnesses were interested due to prior enmity, their testimony was reliably corroborated by the recovery of weapons from the appellants fleeing the scene and the positive ballistic expert reports linking those weapons to the crime. The Court rejected the defense's belated plea that the appellants were arrested from their homes, noting the failure to raise this in their statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the convictions, establishing that circumstantial evidence, such as immediate arrest and forensic matching, provides sufficient corroboration to sustain convictions in cases involving interested witnesses.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon if supported by independent circumstantial evidence?
- Does the failure to raise a specific defense plea in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken the credibility of that defense at the appellate stage?
- Is the recovery of weapons and positive ballistic reports sufficient to corroborate the testimony of interested eyewitnesses in a murder case?
- Safair vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-06Read full judgment →
- Saeed Zehri vs Nabi Bux Zehri and anothers1996 CLC 497 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
- Saeed Muhammad vs Mehrullah and another1996 PLD Quetta 48 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate a shop in favor of the respondent-landlords, who sought possession for bona fide personal use. The core legal questions were whether the payment of 'Pugree' (a premium or goodwill payment) created a lease in perpetuity that barred eviction, and whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the application despite such payments. The Court held that the payment of 'Pugree' does not create a tenancy in perpetuity nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as such payments are often contrary to public policy and do not supersede statutory rent laws. The Court affirmed that the landlord has the exclusive right to choose which of their properties is suitable for their personal business needs. Consequently, the eviction order was upheld, as the respondents established their bona fide requirement, further evidenced by their offer of alternative accommodation or compensation to the tenant. The principle established is that 'Pugree' payments do not alter the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant or bar eviction proceedings for personal bona fide need.
Questions settled- Does the payment of 'Pugree' create a lease in perpetuity that bars a landlord from seeking eviction for personal bona fide use?
- Does the payment of 'Pugree' or extra consideration oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain an eviction application?
- Can a tenant challenge the landlord's choice of premises for personal use when the landlord has demonstrated bona fide need?
- Is a landlord's offer of alternative accommodation or compensation relevant to establishing the bona fide nature of their personal requirement?
- Saeed Ibne Ali Tirmizi vs Pakistan Water and Power Development1996 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant had neither alleged nor proved mala fides in his removal from service. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was unfounded because the appellant had explicitly raised and detailed allegations of mala fides in his grounds of appeal before the Tribunal concerning a named Project Director. The ratio decidendi is that a service tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal on the premise that mala fides was not alleged when the record clearly demonstrates specific pleadings and details of mala fides. The Court accordingly set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits of the allegation of mala fides.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal was correct in holding that the appellant had neither alleged nor proved mala fides?
- Does Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 exclude the judicial scrutiny of mala fides in removal from service?
- What is the effect of ignoring material pleadings regarding mala fides on the judgment of the Service Tribunal?
- Saeed Hussain Shah vs The State1996 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order issued by a Judge in Chambers, which directed a show-cause notice to the petitioner regarding potential prosecution for making false statements under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petitioner challenged a judicial order directing a specific police officer to investigate the whereabouts of an alleged abductee and suggesting the transfer of the investigation to senior officers due to concerns regarding police honesty and potential evidence tampering. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s directions constituted an impermissible interference with the police investigation process. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a show-cause notice for false statements made in court proceedings is a legitimate exercise of judicial authority and does not constitute interference with an investigation. Furthermore, the Court determined that directing an officer to secure records and suggesting the transfer of an investigation to ensure impartiality, while leaving the final decision to the relevant police authorities, does not amount to the court usurping the investigative powers of the police. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a show-cause notice for false statements made in court constitute interference with a police investigation?
- Can a court direct specific police officers to secure records or suggest the transfer of an investigation without usurping police powers?
- Is a court empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when a party makes a false statement on oath during proceedings?
- Saeed Farooq vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 136 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
- Saeed Farooq vs The State and 2 others1996 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
- Saeed Farooq vs The State And 2 Other1996 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ashraf vs Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem and 11 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of a civil servant. The respondent, initially appointed as a Deputy Secretary via lateral entry, faced termination and subsequent reinstatement. Following his reinstatement, he was promoted to BPS-20. Disputes arose regarding his placement in the gradation list of Secretariat Group Officers. The respondent challenged the gradation list circulated in 1993, seeking restoration of seniority based on previous service and precedents. The petitioners, including the Secretary of the Establishment Division, challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the appeal was time-barred as the respondent failed to challenge earlier gradation lists. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the respondent's appointment was never regularized due to his failure to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination, thereby precluding him from claiming seniority over those who were regularized earlier under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the issues of limitation and the legal requirements for seniority and regularization under the relevant civil service laws.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by time if the respondent failed to challenge earlier gradation lists?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority over regularized officers if their own appointment was not regularized due to failure to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination?
- Saeed Ali and others vs Indus Motors Co. Ltd. and others1996 PLC 461 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Saeed Akhtar Malik vs MRS. Rabia AkhtarK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 502 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed vs The State1996 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-trial or post-arrest bail application by the High Court. The petitioner, a retired Cashier of the Police Department, was accused in an F.I.R. registered under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), with section 409 P.P.C. subsequently added, for allegedly failing to remit deductions to the District Police Welfare Punjab. The core legal question concerned the propriety of withholding bail where the case rests entirely on documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution and challan has been submitted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case relies entirely on documentary evidence already secured and held by the prosecution, and challan has been submitted, the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence weighs heavily in favour of granting bail, notwithstanding the inclusion of offences falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when the case depends entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the prosecution?
- Does the absence of any possibility of tampering with evidence justify granting bail despite the addition of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Whether the submission of challan and custody of documents with the prosecution are grounds for releasing an accused on bail?
- Saeed Ahmed Khan vs The Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Saeed Ahmad, was convicted under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, Mst. Naseem Mai, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution failed to prove its case through eyewitness testimony, which the trial court rejected. However, the appellant, in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, admitted to the killing, claiming he acted under grave and sudden provocation after finding his wife in a compromising position with another man. The trial court accepted this statement in its entirety, convicting him under Section 304, Part I. On appeal, the appellant challenged the severity of the sentence. The High Court, noting the cordial relationship between the couple and the absence of prior animosity, accepted the plea of grave and sudden provocation. Applying the Islamic principle of justice with mercy, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, finding the original sentence excessive.
Questions settled- Can a court accept an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in toto to establish a plea of grave and sudden provocation?
- Is a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment excessive for a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the offence was committed under grave and sudden provocation?
- Does the principle of 'Adal bil Ehsan' (justice with mercy) allow for the reduction of a sentence to the period already undergone in cases of provocation?
- Saeed Ahmad and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
- Sadiya Shah vs Nomination Board of Azad Jammu and KashmirK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
- Sadiq and 5 others vs Qazi Muhammad Naeem and 2 others1996 CLC 1984 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-07Read full judgment →
- Sadia Shah vs Nomination Board of Azad Jammu & Kashmir through Secretary and 2 others1996 MLD 347 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sadia Shah vs Nomination Board of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Through Secretary And 2 Other1996 MLD 347 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sadaruddin vs Superintendent of Police and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Sadan and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1401 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs Maroofan Bibi and others1996 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Saadullah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
- Saadia Ahmed vs The State and 3 others1996 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Saadia Ahmed vs The State And 3 Other1996 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Sa'diya Shah vs Nomination Board of Azad Jammu and Kashmir1996 MLD 286 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
- SA'diya Shah vs Nomination Board of Azad Jammu and Kashmir1996 MLD 286 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
- Sa'ad Sharif vs Saadat Ali Shah, Managing Director, National Police Foundation, Islamabad1996 PLC (C.S.) 1095 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- S.V. Chandra Pandian and others vs S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and others1996 PTD 521 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
- S.M. Rashid vs National Investment Trust Ltd. through Managing Director1996 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- S.M. Nasiruddin vs Messrs Pakistan Industrial Development1996 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
- S.M. Munir and 3 others vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1996 CLC 370 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-31Read full judgment →
- S.G. Rauf & Co., Karachi and 2 others vs United Bank Ltd. and 2 others1996 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
- S. Saleem Raza Kazmi vs Director-General, Pak P.W.D. Islamabad and 51996 PLC (C.S.) 291 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-08-23Read full judgment →
- S. Iqbal Husain Parwana vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad through its Chairman, A.D.B.P., Karachi1996 PLC 625 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
- S. Govindaraja Mudaliar vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and another1996 PTD 472 · Madras High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Roze Muhammad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1059 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
- Royal Flying Coach, Lahore And Another vs 1To Circle-02, Lahore And Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 367 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-03Read full judgment →
- Rosiian Dass & Ors vs Shri Guranditta Mal1996 P.C.T.L.R. 193 · Delhi High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Robkar Adalat vs Sarfraz Alam1996 MLD 1752 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 603 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
- Riazuddin vs Gul Khan Ahmed Qureshi1996 CLC 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Rent Controller's order directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises due to default in rent payment. The respondent-landlord, claiming ownership via a lease-deed, initiated the proceedings after the appellant allegedly stopped paying rent directly. The appellant contended that rent was being deposited in court due to a title dispute between the respondent and the previous landlady. The core legal question was whether the appellant committed default in rent payment and whether additional evidence regarding rent deposits could be admitted at the appellate stage. The High Court held that the appellant's unilateral decision to deposit rent in court, despite previously acknowledging the respondent as the landlord, constituted willful defiance and harassment rather than a bona fide dispute. Furthermore, the court refused to admit additional evidence, noting that parties cannot use appellate proceedings to fill lacunae left during the trial. The principle laid down is that a tenant cannot unilaterally shift to court deposits to harass a landlord after acknowledging their status, and appellate courts will not permit additional evidence to remedy failures to produce proof at the trial stage.
Questions settled- Can a tenant unilaterally deposit rent in court to avoid payment to a landlord after acknowledging their status?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to produce evidence of rent payment before the Rent Controller constitute a lacuna that cannot be filled by additional evidence on appeal?
- Riaz-Ud-Din vs Sindh Labour Court No. 1, Karachi and 2 others1996 PLC 157 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
- Riaz Muhammad Sherani vs Commissioner, D.I. Khan Division, Dera Ismail1996 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the admission of the appellant to the Engineering Degree Course of the University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, for the 1989-90 session. The core legal question was the interpretation of Paragraph 13 of the University's Prospectus concerning the deduction of marks for multiple attempts and improvement examinations. The appellant, who had failed in his first two attempts at the F.Sc. examination, passed on his third attempt in 1988 and subsequently sat for an improvement examination in 1989. The University deducted 30 marks in total (10 marks for each of the two failed attempts and 10 marks for the improvement attempt). The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging this deduction, but recommended his case for sympathetic consideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Prospectus for the relevant academic year (1989-90) governed the admission, and under its clear terms, 10 marks were to be deducted for each additional attempt and improvement examination. However, the Court endorsed the High Court's recommendation to allow the appellant to complete his degree on compassionate grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of an academic prospectus regarding deduction of marks for multiple attempts apply to failed attempts prior to passing the qualifying examination?
- Can an applicant claim the benefit of an amended prospectus of a subsequent academic year for an admission sought in an earlier session?
- Whether the court can endorse a recommendation for sympathetic or compassionate consideration to allow a student to complete their studies despite dismissing their legal claim on merits?
- Riaz Hussain and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmed vs The State1996 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Riaz Ahmed, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Atta Muhammad, while acquitting his co-accused, Fateh Sher. The petitioner argued that the prosecution's case was based on tainted evidence, citing inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence, the delay in recording the statement of a key witness, and the complainant's contradictory statements regarding the weapon used by the petitioner. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the lower courts, which had sifted the evidence and extended the benefit of doubt to other co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. The Court found no legal error, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petition for leave to appeal and dismissed it, while granting the petitioner the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated?
- Does a contradiction in the complainant's statement regarding the weapon used by an accused necessarily invalidate the entire ocular account?
- Is it legally permissible for a court to sift evidence to convict one accused while extending the benefit of doubt to others in the same case?
- Riaz Ahmed vs Dr. Amtul Hameed Koser and 8 others1996 CLC 678 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of an application by the appellant to be joined as a party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant sought joinder based on a pre-suit agreement where the plaintiffs agreed to transfer 30% of their share in a deceased's estate to the appellant in exchange for financing the litigation. The core legal question was whether the appellant qualified as a necessary or proper party for joinder, or if the agreement constituted a valid devolution of interest under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party, as no effective decree could be passed in his absence, nor was his presence required for complete adjudication. Furthermore, the Court determined that the agreement, being champertous and contingent upon future success, did not constitute a present devolution of interest. The Court affirmed that while Order 1, Rule 10 is not exhaustive, the appellant failed to demonstrate a tangible, vested interest justifying joinder.
Questions settled- Is a person claiming an interest based on a champertous financing agreement a necessary or proper party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit the joinder of a party whose interest is contingent upon the future success of the litigation?
- Can a court permit the joinder of a party based on a pre-suit agreement that has not resulted in the actual devolution of interest?
- Riaz Ahmad, Udc Pakistan WAPDA Electricity (Sub Division), Taxila vs Pakistan WAPDA through Executive Engineer, Taxila1996 PLC 473 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 43 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali and 5 others vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
- Reo Pharma (Pakistan) Limited vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1996 MLD 813 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs Sukkur Municipal Corporation and others1996 PLD Karachi 400 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali and another vs Soofi Muhammad Azam1996 CLC 1828 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali alias Rehma vs The State1996 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Waris. The petition was filed with a delay of 120 days, and the Court found no sufficient grounds for condonation, rendering it liable for dismissal on limitation alone. On merits, the petitioner argued that his conviction was unsustainable because his co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence and that the offense should have been categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, affirming that courts may sift grains from the chaff to convict specific accused where involvement is established beyond doubt, despite acquitting others. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner's act of arming himself and forcibly retrieving his bullock, resulting in murder, constituted culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
- Does the act of arming oneself to forcibly retrieve property resulting in a killing fall under Section 302 or Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to dismissal if it is filed with a significant delay without sufficient grounds for condonation?
- Rehman vs Noora through his Legal Heirs1996 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being a collateral of the vendors. The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the High Court had largely upheld the respondent's claim based on the production of pedigree-tables (Exhs. P.4 and P.5). The core legal question was whether the mere production of these documents by counsel, without supporting oral testimony or affirmative evidence establishing a nexus between the pre-emptor and the vendors, sufficed to prove the relationship. The Supreme Court held that the pedigree-tables alone, without testimonial evidence, could not prove the factum of relationship. The Court observed that the respondent failed to substantiate the connection during cross-examination and no witness testified to the correctness or relevance of the documents. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and dismissed the suit, affirming the principle that documentary evidence of pedigree requires corroborative oral testimony to establish kinship in pre-emption cases.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emptor establish a superior right of pre-emption solely by producing pedigree-tables without oral testimony?
- Is the mere production of pedigree-tables by counsel sufficient to prove a relationship between the pre-emptor and the vendors?
- Does the failure of a pre-emptor to testify regarding the nexus between the pedigree-table and the vendors invalidate the claim of kinship?
- Rehman Ali vs The State1996 MLD 758 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-18Read full judgment →
- Rehm Atullah vs Mst. Azmat Bi and 2 others1996 CLC 1665 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
- Registrar of Industrywise Trade Unions through Deputy Registrar, N.I.R.C., Islamabad vs Pakistan Steel People's Workers' Union and 12 others1996 PLC 661 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
- Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Region, Karachi1996 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-07Read full judgment →
- Regional Commissioner of Income Tax And Other vs Mr. ShafiK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 525 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Redco Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Tourism Development Corporation, Punjab and others1996 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the levy of entertainment duty on a chair-lift project operated by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the use of a chair-lift falls within the definition of "entertainment" under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, particularly after the 1992 amendment to the definition clause. The petitioner argued that because "chair-lift" was not explicitly included in the amended definition of "entertainment" under Section 2(d) of the Act, the duty was not leviable. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "entertainment" in the Act, which uses the word "includes," is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consequently, the omission of "chair-lift" from the specific list in the amended clause did not imply its exclusion from the scope of the Act. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that the charging section (Section 3) is couched in wide terms, covering payments for admission to any entertainment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Is the definition of 'entertainment' under Section 2(d) of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, exhaustive?
- Does the use of the word 'includes' in a statutory definition imply that the list provided is not exhaustive?
- Does the omission of a specific activity from an amended definition of 'entertainment' imply that the activity is excluded from the scope of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?