Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Rahim and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafuque vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiullah Khan and 127 others vs Messrs Fauji1996 PLC 442 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Water and Power Development Authority '1996 PLC (C.S.) 828 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Muhammad Ashiq and 2 others1996 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-30
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-Ishhadstatutory limitationpostal facilitiesknowledge of salePunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit dismissed by the District Judge and upheld by the High Court. The petitioner sought to pre-empt a sale of land, but the core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had complied with the mandatory requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. Specifically, the issue was whether the demand was made within the statutory two-week period following the petitioner's knowledge of the sale. The evidence established that the petitioner gained knowledge of the sale shortly after its completion, yet failed to issue the required notice until several months later. The petitioner attempted to invoke the proviso regarding the absence of postal facilities to excuse the delay, but the evidence regarding a personal demand was contradictory and untimely. The Supreme Court held that the statutory time limit of two weeks applies regardless of whether the notice is sent by registered post or made personally in the presence of witnesses. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the Talb-i-Ishhad was time-barred and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the two-week time limit for Talb-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 apply when a pre-emptor makes a personal demand due to lack of postal facilities?
  • Is the requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad mandatory within two weeks of the knowledge of the sale under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Awan vs Nadir Ali and another1996 PLC 20 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs The State and others1996 P Cr. L J 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and anothers vs Mst. Maryam Bibi alias Kumari and others1996 SCMR 1867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19
  review petitionlocus standinon-joinder of partiestechnicalitySupreme Court jurisdictionfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Articles 187 and 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking a review of a previous Supreme Court judgment dated 25-11-1991. The petitioners, who were not formally impleaded as parties in the original Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1987, sought to challenge the judgment, arguing that their property rights were adversely affected. The core legal question was whether a party not impleaded in the original proceedings has standing to file a review petition against a final judgment. The Court held that the review petition was not maintainable. It observed that the litigation had been pending for decades, and the respondent had impleaded numerous parties claiming interest in the disputed property. The Court concluded that the petitioners were fully aware of the ongoing proceedings and had deliberately remained silent, only raising the issue of non-joinder as a technicality after the judgment was rendered. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a party who knowingly abstains from participating in proceedings cannot subsequently invoke review jurisdiction based on a technicality.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who was not a party to the original proceedings file a review petition against a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Is a party who was aware of ongoing litigation but failed to participate entitled to challenge the final judgment on the grounds of non-joinder?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to refuse a review petition filed by a non-party who knowingly remained silent during the original proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Faran Sugar Mills Ltd., Hyderabad1996 PLC 538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Rafi Danish vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 457 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 916 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The State1996 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal appealleave to appealpolice investigationconvictionsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partially accepted the petitioners' appeal by setting aside their convictions under Section 326/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining their convictions and sentences under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for injuries sustained by the complainant party when other co-accused, who were also alleged to have played an effective role, were exonerated by the police during the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the exoneration of co-accused by the police does not automatically absolve the remaining accused of vicarious liability if the evidence supports the application of common intention. The Court affirmed that Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was fully attracted given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, refused leave to appeal, and upheld the sentences imposed by the lower courts, deeming them appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Can accused persons be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if co-accused charged with effective roles were exonerated by the police?
  • Does the exoneration of co-accused by the police during the challan stage provide a legal benefit to the remaining accused regarding their liability for injuries caused?
  • Is the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 dependent on the police's decision to include or exclude other suspects in the challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qurban vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Quraish Khan And Others vs Roohul Amin1996 MLD 1156 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State1996 MLD 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervaiz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Rizvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone-a, Lahore, And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 55 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Rizvi vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone -a, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Federal Service Tribunal
  disciplinary proceedingsdismissal from serviceregular inquirysummary proceduremisconductservice associationnatural justiceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of an Income Tax Inspector from service, initiated under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The appellant was dismissed primarily for organizing and participating in elections of an employees' association, which the Department alleged was defunct and illegal based on a prior High Court order. The core legal question was whether the appellant's actions constituted misconduct and whether the summary disciplinary procedure adopted by the Authorized Officer was legally sufficient given the appellant's denial of factual allegations. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the summary procedure was inappropriate because the charges involved disputed facts that required evidence. While one member favored setting aside the dismissal entirely, the majority, including the Chairman, concluded that the interests of justice necessitated a regular inquiry. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case to the departmental authorities to conduct a regular inquiry under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, ensuring the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

  Questions settled

  • When is a regular inquiry mandatory in disciplinary proceedings against a government servant?
  • Can an Authorized Officer dispense with a regular inquiry when the accused denies the factual allegations in a show-cause notice?
  • Does the abolition of classes under the 1973 Rules render existing service associations illegal?
  • What is the procedure when members of a Service Tribunal differ in their opinion on a service matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Cheema vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 71) · Board of Revenue · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs SHO Police Station Qadirpur Rawan, Distric1996 MLD 2052 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs S.H.O., Police Station Qadirpur Rawan, District1996 MLD 2052 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Mitsubishi Corporation (Incorporated in Japan1996 PLC 126 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Shah vs The State and 4 others1996 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 2 others vs Mir Ahmad and anothers1996 MLD 1389 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan And 2 Others vs Mir Ahmad And Another1996 MLD 1389 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 4 others vs Messrs Daelim Inudstrial Co. Limited1996 PLC 97 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawab Siddiqui and 4 others vs Sindh Labour Court No. 2, Karachi and another1996 PLC 555 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasrullah vs Inspectorgeneral, Police, Punjab, Lahore1996 MLD 891 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem alias Naseemo vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1302 · Sindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryExplosive Substances Actlack of statutory sanctionco-accused baildelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated order of the High Court of Sindh disposes of five bail applications stemming from FIR No. 65/95 registered at Police Station Market Hyderabad under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution alleged that crackers were exploded outside an examination center. The primary legal questions were whether the rule of consistency entitled the present applicants to bail when co-accused with specific overt roles had already been granted bail, and whether the absence of mandatory statutory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 warranted bail due to trial delay. The High Court granted post-arrest bail to all five applicants upon finding that no specific roles were assigned to them, placing them on a better footing than co-accused who were already released on bail. Additionally, the lack of mandatory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 meant the trial was unlikely to commence soon, making the case one of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies to grant bail to co-accused who are on a better or identical footing to those already admitted to bail?
  • Whether the absence of mandatory statutory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 renders a case fit for further inquiry and grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Muhammad Haroon Khan and 3 others1996 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19
  service appeallocus standimaintainabilityaggrieved personreinstatementirregular appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had reinstated respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Haroon Khan) into service after his termination for irregular appointment. The appellant, Muhammad Naeem, challenged this reinstatement, claiming he was more meritorious for the position of Supervisor. The core legal question was whether the appellant had the necessary locus standi to maintain an appeal against the Service Tribunal's order reinstating the respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The Court found that at the time of the respondent's appointment and subsequent termination, the appellant was not serving as a Supervisor but as a Secretary, Union Council. Furthermore, the appellant had not challenged the respondent's initial appointment. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant was not an 'aggrieved person' entitled to challenge the reinstatement order. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, affirming that a third party cannot challenge a service reinstatement order without demonstrating a direct legal grievance or standing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate who was not serving in the same position at the time of a respondent's appointment and termination have the locus standi to challenge the respondent's reinstatement?
  • Can an appeal be maintained by a party who failed to challenge the initial appointment of the respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State1996 MLD 189 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Alias Noori vs The State1996 MLD 192 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Ahmad vs The State1996 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15
  bail applicationfresh bail applicationleave to appealjudicial discretioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning a bail application. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was sustainable in the circumstances presented by the petitioner. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment. However, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for bail after the expiry of three months from the date of his initial arrest. Crucially, the Court held that any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order should not be taken into consideration by the trial court or the relevant forum when deciding the subsequent fresh bail application. This ensures that the petitioner's future bail plea is adjudicated on its own merits, uninfluenced by the previous findings of the High Court, thereby upholding the principle of fair and independent judicial consideration in bail proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner file a fresh application for bail after a previous refusal by the High Court?
  • Should observations made by the High Court in a previous bail order influence the decision on a subsequent fresh bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1996 MLD 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs Muhammad Fazal1996 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-21
  ejectment applicationremand orderwrit jurisdictionscope of remandreconstructionrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded an ejectment matter to the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, for a fresh decision. The original ejectment application, filed by the respondent on grounds including default in rent, impairment of property value, personal requirement, and reconstruction, was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. In the subsequent writ petition, the respondent pressed only the ground of reconstruction. The High Court remanded the entire appeal for a fresh decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the entire case when only the ground of reconstruction was argued before it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding the entire matter. The ratio established is that where a party limits its arguments in a writ petition to a specific ground, the court's scope of remand should be restricted to that specific ground rather than reopening the entire case. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, restricting the remand solely to the re-hearing of the appeal regarding the ground of reconstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court is justified in remanding an entire case when only one specific ground was pressed during the writ proceedings?
  • Can a court restrict the scope of a remand order to the specific legal grounds argued before it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs Additional District Judge and others1996 CLC 1896 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Khan vs Azad Government of the,State of Jammu1996 PLC (C.S.) 437 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Muhammad Mukhtar1996 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-25
  ocular evidencecorroborationappreciation of evidenceacquittal of co-accusedleave to appealcriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction, specifically challenging the reliance placed by the lower courts on ocular evidence. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether ocular evidence, which was previously found insufficient and rejected by the trial court regarding co-accused persons who were subsequently acquitted, can legally serve as a reliable basis for the conviction of the remaining petitioners in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this contention, focusing on the principle of consistency in the appreciation of evidence. The holding implies that the conviction of the petitioners may be unsustainable if the same evidence deemed unreliable for acquitted co-accused is used against them without additional supporting proof. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is discarded regarding some co-accused, it requires independent corroboration before it can be safely utilized to sustain the conviction of other co-accused persons, ensuring that the evidentiary standard remains consistent and fair across all parties involved in the criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular evidence that was rejected against acquitted co-accused be used to convict other petitioners without independent corroboration?
  • Does the rejection of ocular evidence against some co-accused necessitate independent corroboration for the conviction of remaining co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar Sheikh vs Aziz Ahmad Hashmi, Chairman, Board of Intermediarte and Secondary Education, Sargodha and 4 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-17
  expunction of remarksnatural justicecondemned unheardservice tribunaljudicial proprietyadverse remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a challenge by a retired civil servant against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, specifically contesting adverse remarks made against him in that judgment. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal used strong, unwarranted language, characterizing his conduct as mala fide, fishy, and obstreperous, without providing him an opportunity to defend himself. The core legal question was whether a judicial or quasi-judicial body can pass disparaging remarks against a party without affording them a prior opportunity to explain their position. The Supreme Court held that the remarks were unwarranted, speculative, and not germane to the controversy. Emphasizing the principle of natural justice, the Court ruled that no person should be condemned unheard. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal erred by passing such remarks without hearing the petitioner. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of expunging the objectionable remarks, declaring that they shall be deemed as never having been passed against the petitioner, thereby upholding the requirement of fairness in judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial or quasi-judicial body pass adverse remarks against a party without providing them an opportunity to be heard?
  • Are disparaging remarks that are not germane to the controversy sustainable in a judgment?
  • What is the legal consequence of passing judicial remarks against a person without prior notice or hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muazzam Mirza vs Chairman, Federal Public Service1996 PLC (C.S.) 641 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Mithal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1981 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27
  post-arrest bailfurther enquiryvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblymurderinvestigation reports
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Mansha and Rab Nawaz, who were accused of murder and other offences under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the conflicting investigation reports regarding their presence and participation at the scene of the crime. The court observed that multiple investigating officers concluded the petitioners were unarmed and were not the primary assailants, noting that the fatal injury was caused by a co-accused. The court held that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of 'further enquiry' under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to establish their active role or specific liability beyond mere presence. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where investigation reports consistently indicate the absence of weapons and specific overt acts by the accused, their culpability becomes a matter of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without evidence of weapon possession or specific overt acts, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • When investigation reports are conflicting or suggest a lack of active participation, does the case fall under the category of 'further enquiry' for the purpose of bail?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being named in the F.I.R. when subsequent investigations consistently exonerate them of specific violent acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik And Other vs Azad Government of State of JammuK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 348 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik and 7 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others1996 MLD 1071 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik And 7 Others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 5 Other1996 MLD 1071ls · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahroof Khan vs The State and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 1138 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Muhmmad Iqbal1996 CLC 1672 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-04-09
  second civil appealwithdrawal of suitomission of part of claimsubsequent suitrecovery of possessionconstructive res judicatacause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This second civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kotli, which had set aside the trial court's decision dismissing the respondent's suit. The core legal question revolves around whether the withdrawal of an earlier suit without permission to file a fresh one, and the omission to claim all available reliefs arising from the same cause of action, bars a subsequent suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the plaintiff, having omitted to claim recovery of possession in the earlier suit and having withdrawn it without leave of the court to file a fresh suit, was barred by the principles enshrined in Order II, Rule 2 and Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the lower appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff cannot split claims or institute a subsequent suit for omitted reliefs or after withdrawing a prior suit on the same cause of action without obtaining prior permission from the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of an earlier suit without permission to file a fresh suit bar a subsequent suit in respect of the same subject-matter?
  • What is the effect under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a plaintiff omits to claim a relief available at the time of instituting the first suit?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a separate suit for recovery of possession when a prior suit concerning the same property and cause of action was withdrawn without seeking leave to file a fresh suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 2.others vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid vs Abdul Subhan Mir and others1996 CLC 853 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Haji Ghulam Qadir Brohi and another1996 P Cr. L J 99 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21
  criminal revisionsummoning additional accusedcolumn No. 2abetmentcognizanceCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed under sections 435, 439-A, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which summoned the applicant to join as an accused after his name was placed in column No. 2 of the challan. The core legal question was whether a trial court can summon a person as an accused under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of a mere allegation of abetment without sufficient incriminating evidence or material connecting them to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that while a Court of Sessions can take cognizance and summon an additional accused under section 193(1), it must be based on appropriate incriminating evidence or material brought on record during the trial, rather than a bald, unsupported allegation of abetment or a general assertion that an incident occurred at someone's instance. The Court set aside the summoning order while observing that the trial court could summon the applicant later if sufficient evidence emerged during the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon a person as an accused under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based solely on a bald allegation of abetment without supporting incriminating evidence?
  • Whether an accused whose name is placed in column No. 2 of the challan can be joined as an accused prior to the emergence of material evidence during trial?
  • Is a general assertion that an incident occurred at the instance of a person sufficient to constitute abetment under section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 7 others vs Muhammad Boota and anothers1996 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan And 7 Others vs Muhammad Boota And Another1996 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 3 others vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan And 3 Others vs The State And Another1996 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil and others vs Allah Wasaya1996 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-25
  pre-emptionTalabsrevival of suitleave to appealplaint avermentsPunjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1990
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision judgment by the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the appellate court's decision to set aside a pre-emption decree previously granted to the petitioners. The petitioners had originally filed a pre-emption suit in 1988, which was initially dismissed for failure to perform the requisite Talabs. Following the enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1990, the petitioners successfully applied for the revival of their suit under section 36(2) of the Ordinance, leading to a decree in their favor. However, the District Judge subsequently set aside this decree, ruling that the plaint failed to properly aver the performance of the necessary Talabs. The High Court upheld this dismissal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the amended plaint sufficiently averred the Talabs and argued that the requirements under the 1990 Ordinance were less stringent than under the repealed legislation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioners were correctly non-suited on the grounds of insufficient pleadings regarding Talabs, while issuing an interim order restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1990 impose less stringent requirements for the performance of Talabs compared to the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed for failure to aver the performance of Talabs in the plaint?
  • Under what circumstances can a previously dismissed pre-emption suit be revived under section 36(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The Magistrate 1ST Class, Pakpattan Sharif1996 P Cr. L J 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and others vs A.T.M. Corporation Ltd. and others1996 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and 12 others vs M/s. Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 21996 PLC 17 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jumman vs Messrs Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd., Badin1996 PLC 527 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jumman vs Messrs Pangrio Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Badin1996 PLC 531 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juman and 5 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1996 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02
  leave to appealmurderappraisal of evidenceself-defencerecoveryconcurrent findingscriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of a co-accused, and whether the defence plea of self-defence was tenable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case of the petitioner was clearly distinguishable from that of the acquitted co-accused, given that the petitioner inflicted fatal injuries with a chhuri, had weapon recovery on his pointation, and was corroborated by injured eye-witnesses whose testimony was credible. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts based on proper appreciation of evidence and corroborated by medical and ocular testimony will not be interfered with, and that a plea of self-defence lacking credence and contradicted by physical facts cannot be accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner can be convicted on the same evidence upon which a co-accused has been acquitted?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court be interfered with when there is no misreading of evidence?
  • Whether a plea of self-defence can be sustained when it lacks credence and is belied by the physical and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs The Manager, Rustam Sohrab Cycle Factory(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 188) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan and 4 others vs Azad Government of the State of J & K1996 CLC 1967 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-26
  land acquisitionlimitation perioddate of knowledgeawardreference applicationnotice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the High Court's order dismissing a writ petition against the Collector's decision holding a land acquisition reference application under section 18 to be time-barred. The core legal question was whether the six-month limitation period under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for filing a reference application against an award, where no notice was served under section 12(2), runs from the literal date of the award or from the date of knowledge. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that where a person is kept in the dark without statutory notice, limitation runs from the date of knowledge, adopting the principle that the date of the award means the date of its actual or constructive communication to the affected party. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's order and Collector's decision were vacated, and the Collector was directed to refer the matter to the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing a reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act run from the date of the award or from the date of knowledge when no statutory notice of the award is served upon the interested person?
  • Can adverse action be taken against a person by keeping them in the dark regarding an order or proceeding without notice?
  • What constitutes the date of the award under proviso (b) to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act when the affected party is not present at the time the award is made and receives no notice under section 12?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Shaukat Ali and another1996 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16
  post-arrest baillast-seen evidencemurdercircumstantial evidenceleave to appeal refused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 10-11-1994, whereby respondent Shaukat Ali was granted post-arrest bail in a murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of 'last-seen' evidence to sustain detention and deny bail where no direct evidence connects the accused to the crime and the exact time of the murder is unknown. The Supreme Court held that the last-seen evidence, placing the accused and the deceased together days prior and at a distance from the crime scene, was insufficient to exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. The Court concluded that the reasons given by the High Court for granting bail were fully convincing and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that weak or distant last-seen circumstantial evidence, which fails to establish close proximity in time and space to the offense, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence that fails to place the accused and deceased in sufficient proximity of time and space sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail in the absence of compelling grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Hassan vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1996 PLC 730 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Butt vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 5 others1996 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14
  service tribunalmisconductcustoms inspectordepartmental inquiryremoval from servicefraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the petitioner's appeal by converting his dismissal from service into removal from service. The core legal question concerns the validity of a departmental inquiry finding a Customs Inspector guilty of misconduct for submitting incorrect and misleading examination reports regarding export consignments, leading to financial detriment to the national exchequer. The Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry was conducted properly, that the report of the U.S. Customs Authorities carried a presumption of correctness, and that the Service Tribunal's judgment contained no legal flaw warranting interference. The key principle laid down is that departmental inquiries conducted by officers with specialized knowledge of departmental rules are entitled to due weight, and official foreign inspection reports, unless successfully rebutted, form a valid evidentiary basis for establishing departmental misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the report of foreign customs authorities carries a presumption of correctness in a domestic departmental inquiry?
  • Does a departmental inquiry require formal recording of evidence in the same manner as a judicial trial?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 190 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverypublic witnessespolice witness credibilityProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) OrderSection 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Jameel, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for the alleged possession of 25 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the recovery of narcotics, witnessed solely by police officers without independent public witnesses, violated the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the recovery was not invalidated by the absence of public witnesses. Relying on consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court established the principle that in narcotics cases, police officers are competent witnesses whose testimony is as credible as any other. The Court further noted that public witnesses are often reluctant to testify in drug trafficking cases, making strict compliance with Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, non-mandatory in such contexts. As the alleged offense carried a potential sentence of life imprisonment, the Court found the petitioner disentitled to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is the recovery of narcotics invalid if witnessed only by police officers without independent public witnesses?
  • Is strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in cases involving the recovery of narcotics?
  • Are police officers considered competent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases?
  • Does the potential for a life imprisonment sentence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 bar the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs Shafqat BARI'and 4 others1996 SCMR 1562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-03
  bail cancellationalteration of chargeqatl shibh-i-amdqatl-i-amdfurther inquirycriminal appealsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to cancel the bail previously granted to the accused respondents. The core legal questions involved whether the accused respondents were entitled to remain on bail when the Trial Court subsequently framed a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite their initial release on bail when the charge was altered to section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the police, and whether the High Court exercised its discretion in refusing to cancel the bail on sound judicial principles. The Supreme Court held that since the original grounds regarding the case being one of further inquiry still subsisted and the determination of the precise nature of the offense remained a matter for the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, interference with the High Court's discretion was unwarranted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the mere subsequent framing of a more serious charge by the Trial Court does not automatically warrant the cancellation of bail already granted when the case continues to present reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused respondents entitled to avail the concession of bail allowed on the alteration of charge to section 316 when the Trial Court subsequently frames a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the High Court has exercised its discretion in refusing to cancel the bail allowed to the accused respondents on sound judicial principles?
  • Does the subsequent framing of a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically necessitate the cancellation of post-arrest bail previously granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamaal Shikoh and 7 others vs Directorgeneral, Hyderabad1996 CLC 408 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffer vs Syed Ziaulislam Shah1996 MLD 976 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1996 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Other vs (Mst.) Bashir Bibi(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 80) · Board of Revenue · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam Qamar vs Abdur Rashid and 3 others1996 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05
  service lawseniorityrepatriationcivil servicePunjab Service TribunalOne Unit dissolutionpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of the respondent, Abdur Rashid, regarding his seniority and promotion. The respondent, a former employee of the Province of Baluchistan, was repatriated to the Province of Punjab following the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the respondent's seniority should be calculated from his initial date of continuous officiating service in Baluchistan or from the date of his repatriation to Punjab. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that, pursuant to the Government's policy letter dated 23rd November 1974, the seniority of officials repatriated from Baluchistan must be fixed with reference to their date of continuous officiating in a particular grade. The Court held that the respondent was senior to the petitioner and other respondents, and dismissed the petitioner's grievance regarding his non-impleadment in the Tribunal proceedings, noting that the outcome would have remained unchanged given the clear application of the established seniority policy.

  Questions settled

  • Should the seniority of civil servants repatriated from Baluchistan to Punjab upon the dissolution of One Unit be calculated from the date of repatriation or the date of continuous officiating service?
  • Does the failure to implead a party in service tribunal proceedings invalidate a judgment if the outcome would have been identical based on established policy?
  • Are officials repatriated from Baluchistan to Punjab following the dissolution of One Unit treated as fresh recruits for seniority purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq Anwar vs Director (Coordination), WAPDA1996 PLC (C.S.) 265 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq and 71 others vs United Bank Ltd through Zonal Head, Hyderabad and another1996 PLC 177 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq Ali alias Mulla and others vs The State1996 SCMR 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-30
  leave to appealcriminal house-trespasscompoundable offencescompromisesentence reductionwaiver of challenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside their convictions for murder and hurt pursuant to a compromise between the parties. The core legal questions involve whether a conviction under a non-compoundable offence can be challenged on merits after counsel explicitly gave up the contest on merits in the High Court in exchange for sentence reduction, and whether a non-compoundable conviction can be set aside on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court held that a petitioner cannot resile from the concession made by their counsel before the High Court to abandon the contest on merits, and that a non-compoundable offence cannot be compounded or set aside on humanitarian grounds. The key principle laid down is that counsel's deliberate waiver of a challenge on merits in exchange for a lenient sentence binds the party, and non-compoundable offences cannot be condoned through compromise or compassion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner challenge a conviction on merits in the Supreme Court after their counsel expressly abandoned the contest on merits in the High Court to secure a reduction in sentence?
  • Whether a conviction for a non-compoundable offence can be set aside by the court on compassionate or humanitarian grounds due to a compromise in major offences arising from the same incident?
  • Does house-trespass conviction under section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remain maintainable when the place entered is contested as not falling within the definition of a house?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Ch. Muhammad Azhar. District Magistrate, Rajanpur1996 MLD 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2014 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-13
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory groundmurderfourth provisodelay in trialdesperate criminal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on statutory grounds in a case registered under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contending that his trial had not concluded despite a lapse of over two years and seven months, and that the delay was not attributable to him. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the manner of the offence brought the case within the prohibitive fourth proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the petitioner's alleged conduct. The Lahore High Court held that bail on statutory grounds under the third proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a matter of right and leaves no discretion with the Court unless barred by the fourth proviso. The Court observed that the allegations in the First Information Report arose from a sudden altercation and did not establish that the petitioner was a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. As the delay in concluding the trial was not caused by the petitioner, and he was not a previous convict, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail on statutory grounds under the third proviso of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to be granted as of right?
  • Does the mere severity of allegations in an F.I.R. automatically bring an accused within the prohibitive fourth proviso of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can delay in the conclusion of a trial caused by the record being summoned before the Supreme Court be attributed to an accused person seeking statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Syed Muhammad Zubair1996 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Chan Zeb and another1996 P Cr. L J 845 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-06
  post-arrest bailcancellation of bailcommon intentionpre-arrest bailmedical grounds for bailvicarious liabilitymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected criminal miscellaneous applications: one by the petitioner, Muhammad Ishaq, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and attempted murder; and another by the complainant, Chanzeb, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail previously granted to a co-accused, Mir Aslam. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being directly charged with lethal violence, and whether the pre-arrest bail of the co-accused, granted on medical grounds, was sustainable. The Court held that the petitioner, having actively participated in a pre-arranged plan with common intention to commit violence, was not entitled to bail, as there were reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment. Regarding the co-accused, the Court found the medical grounds for bail were not bona fide and lacked supporting evidence, rendering the concession unsustainable. The Court affirmed that where accused persons act in concert with lethal weapons, individual attribution of specific shots is immaterial at the bail stage, and bail granted on unsubstantiated medical grounds must be cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person who acts in concert with others to commit a crime is vicariously liable for the offense regardless of whose specific act caused the death?
  • Can pre-arrest bail granted on medical grounds be cancelled if the accused fails to produce medical evidence or if the infirmity is not substantiated?
  • Is a bail application for an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment liable to be rejected when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused participated in a pre-arranged plan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Isahaq and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-04
  leave to appealcapital chargeinterested witnessescorroborationcriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the petitioners on a capital charge. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the High Court was legally justified in upholding a conviction based solely on the testimony of interested witnesses in a capital case, in the absence of sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of this conviction, specifically focusing on the evidentiary requirements for sustaining a capital conviction when relying on interested witnesses. The holding of the Court at this stage is limited to the grant of leave to appeal, thereby establishing the principle that the sufficiency of corroboration for interested witness testimony in capital cases is a substantial question of law requiring appellate review.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge without corroboration?
  • Was the High Court justified in maintaining a conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and 5 others vs Messrs Y.K.K. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi through Managing Director1996 PLC 240 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs The District Magistrate, Bhakkar1996 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Azad vs Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi1996 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan and 5 others vs Post Master General and 5 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 75 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal, Etc vs Director General LDAK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →