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 Aslam and anothers vs Muhammad Amin1996 SCMR 1646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08
  computation of timejudicial decreeequitable principlespecific performancelimitation periodGeneral Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the computation of a sixty-day period stipulated in a court decree for the refund of an advance payment. The core legal question was whether the starting date, from which the time period was to run, should be included or excluded in the computation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the principle embodied in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908—that the date from which a period is reckoned must be excluded—constitutes a principle of equity and good conscience. Consequently, this principle applies to the interpretation of judicial decrees and orders, not merely statutes, to ensure uniformity and fairness in legal proceedings. By excluding the starting date, the respondent's deposit was found to be within the prescribed time limit. The Court affirmed that unless a contrary intention is explicitly clear, this equitable rule of construction governs the computation of time in judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Should the starting date be excluded when computing a time period specified in a court decree?
  • Does the principle of excluding the first day in a time computation, as found in the General Clauses Act, apply to judicial orders?
  • Is the principle of excluding the starting date in time computation a rule of equity applicable to the interpretation of court decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Khan and others1996 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs The State1996 P C. L J 1866 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Khan And Other1996 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 6 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 827 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs Syed Muhammad Azeem Shah and 31996 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03
  pre-emptioncross-objectionsregular second appealsuperior right of pre-emptionestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed the appellants' regular second appeal. The underlying matter arose from a pre-emption suit filed by respondent No. 1 regarding land sold to the appellants via a registered sale-deed dated 18-5-1976. The trial Court found that the pre-emptor had a superior right but dismissed the suit on the ground of estoppel. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding on estoppel and decreed the suit, while the appellants failed to file cross-objections regarding issue No. 1. In the second appeal, the appellants attempted to claim a superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy, which the High Court repelled because the unappealed finding on issue No. 1 had attained finality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that a respondent cannot attack a decree or reopen an issue decided against them without filing cross-objections before the First Appellate Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a respondent can attack a decree or ask for its variation without filing cross-objections before the First Appellate Court?
  • Does a finding on an issue not challenged via cross-objections before the First Appellate Court attain finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Fabricating1996 PLC 182 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs Jehan Khan and 18 others1996 CLC 689 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Kali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd vs Assistant Commissionercumreturning1996 CLC 1772 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-08
  election disputewrit jurisdictionfugitive from justicenomination papersconstitutional petitiondisqualificationelection tribunalabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the rejection of the petitioner’s nomination papers by an Election Tribunal. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a writ petition during the ongoing election process and whether a proclaimed offender, acting as a fugitive from justice, possesses the standing to seek judicial relief. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 creates an independent, exclusive jurisdiction for election disputes, thereby barring High Court intervention under Article 199 during the election process. The Court further ruled that the petitioner, having failed to surrender to the law and ignoring tribunal directions for personal appearance, was a fugitive from justice. Consequently, he was disentitled to seek equitable relief. The judgment affirms that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not available to those who flout the legal process or come to court with unclean hands. Furthermore, the Court held that such conduct may also constitute disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) for bringing the judiciary into ridicule.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere in election matters while the election process is ongoing?
  • Is a fugitive from justice or a proclaimed offender entitled to seek relief from the High Court?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in election disputes?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified for bringing the judiciary into ridicule under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd vs Assistant Commissioner-Cum-ReturningK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 428 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asii,Am vs Ali Zaman and others1996 P Cr. L J 1669 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1996 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-17
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionraiding partypolice testimonyindependent witnessespersonal searchbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by the trial court, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the uncorroborated and contradictory testimonies of police officials and a biased complainant, without independent witnesses or proof that the raiding party overheard the bribe conversation, are sufficient to sustain a conviction for accepting illegal gratification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that in bribery and trap cases, members of the raiding party must overhear the conversation between the bribe giver and receiver, and independent witnesses should be associated with personal searches when available, to eliminate the chances of framing innocent persons. The key principles laid down emphasize that reliance solely on interested police testimony without corroboration in discrepant circumstances is legally unwarranted, and failure to prove the specific place of occurrence or recover the exact alleged amount creates fatal doubts in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for bribery without independent corroboration?
  • Is it mandatory for members of a raiding party to overhear the conversation between the bribe giver and the accused to eliminate chances of false implication?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to associate independent public witnesses during the personal search of an accused where such witnesses are readily available?
  • Does a material discrepancy regarding the exact place of occurrence and the amount recovered vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Shah Noor Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Shah Noor Khan And Another1996 MLD 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Soomro vs Sindh Local Government Board, Housing Town ,Planning and Local Government Department, Government of Sindh through Chairman, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 4 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 501 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1996 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-06
  criminal revisionlimitationopportunity of hearingleave to appealappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal questions are whether the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing as required by law, and whether a criminal appeal that is time-barred can be treated as a criminal revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petition raises the issue of whether the lower courts failed to properly appraise the evidence in accordance with established principles of criminal justice. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised require detailed consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine these procedural and evidentiary issues. The decision emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that procedural bars, such as limitation, do not preclude the court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction where appropriate and that the right to a fair hearing is strictly upheld in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a time-barred criminal appeal be treated as a criminal revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 act as a bar to treating a criminal appeal as a revision?
  • Is a court required to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before passing an order of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen and another vs The State and another1996 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-23
  oral dying declarationenhancement of sentencemotive in murderadmissibility of newspaper reportslife imprisonmentcapital punishmenteyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprised cross-appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a conviction under Sections 302, 301/320, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The convict challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, while the State sought enhancement of the sentence to death penalty following the murder of a senior police official and another individual. The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility and reliability of an unwritten oral dying declaration, the effect of non-recording of a dying declaration by attending magistrates or police officers, the evidentiary value of newspaper reports in criminal proceedings, and whether death penalty is mandatory where the origin of the offense or motive remains unestablished. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that an oral dying declaration made by a conscious victim to credible witnesses is admissible and reliable even if not reduced to writing. Furthermore, newspaper reports cannot constitute admissible evidence unless their author is examined in court. Lastly, the absence of a proved motive or clear origin of the offense justifies withholding the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Is an oral dying declaration admissible in evidence and sufficient to form the basis of a conviction if supported by credible witness testimony?
  • Does the failure of police or executive authorities to formally record a dying declaration automatically invalidate an oral declaration made by the victim?
  • Can unproven newspaper cuttings be relied upon as evidence in a criminal trial without examining their author as a witness?
  • Is the Court justified in withholding the sentence of death and maintaining life imprisonment where the prosecution fails to establish a specific motive for the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Choudhry vs M/s. Ba.S.F., Landhi Industrial Areas,1996 PLC 198 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and other vs Gul Mawaz and others1996 CLC 150 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Another vs Fateh Bibi And 2 Other1996 MLD 753 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-11
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonycorroborationfirearm recoveryforcible possessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding convictions and sentences in a criminal case involving murder and assault arising from a dispute over joint property. The core legal questions concern the appreciation of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of weapon recoveries, and the appropriateness of capital punishment for co-accused acting under the influence of an elder. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses present at the scene during broad daylight was rightly relied upon by the lower courts, and that the accused had no right to take forcible possession of land in cultivating possession of the deceased. While the petitions of certain co-accused were dismissed, leave to appeal was granted specifically to Muhammad Ashraf to re-appraise the evidence because the firearm recovered from him did not match the crime empties. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witness testimony is natural and credible, and corroborated by medical and material evidence, conviction will be sustained, but discrepancies regarding weapon matching warrant a re-appraisal of evidence for the specific accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of natural witnesses can be relied upon when corroborated by medical and material evidence?
  • Does a co-accused who acts at the behest of an elder while armed with a firearm qualify for a lesser punishment?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted for the re-appraisal of evidence when the weapon recovered from an accused fails to match the crime empties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Kalia vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque vs The State1996 MLD 774 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque Chief and others vs Home Secretary, Government1996 PLD Supreme Court 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-23
  criminal trial venueprison trialSuppression of Terrorist Activitiesconstitutional right to public trialvenue of trialspecial courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions challenging a notification issued by the Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, which designated the Central Prison, Karachi, as the venue for the trial of the petitioners under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The petitioners challenged the legality of conducting criminal trials within prison premises, arguing against the validity of the notification issued under subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act. The High Court had previously dismissed their petitions, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the law and the Constitution permit the fixing of a criminal trial venue inside a prison facility. Furthermore, the Court sought to examine whether the High Court correctly applied established precedents regarding the venue of criminal trials, specifically referencing the legal principles discussed in Asif Ali Zardari v. Special Judge (Offences in Banks) and Mairaj Muhammad Khan v. The State. The core legal question addresses the intersection of statutory authority regarding trial venues and constitutional rights concerning open and public trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal trial be legally conducted inside a prison under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does the fixing of a criminal trial venue inside a prison violate constitutional provisions regarding the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Chief vs Government of Sindh and others1996 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-02
  open trialjail trialspecial courtssuppression of terrorist activitiesplace of sittinglaw and orderjudicial propriety
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged government notifications issued under Section 3(3) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, which directed that the trial of the petitioners be conducted inside the Central Prison, Karachi. The petitioners contended that such notifications violated their right to an open trial as envisaged by Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the government possesses the authority to designate a prison as the venue for a trial under the special statute, notwithstanding the general requirement for open court proceedings. The Court held that while an open trial is a fundamental principle of the judicial system, the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, contains an overriding clause in Section 10. Consequently, the government is empowered to specify a place of sitting, including a prison, under exceptional circumstances. The Court affirmed that while the general rule favors open trials, departure from this rule is permissible when compelling circumstances, such as a deteriorating law and order situation, necessitate it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the government have the authority to order a trial to be held inside a prison under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does the provision for an open trial under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, override the power of the government to designate a place of sitting under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can a trial be held in jail despite the general principle that justice should be administered in an open court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq alias Faku and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Alias Faku And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Ahmed vs The Secretary Finance, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 984 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 136 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs Federal Service Tribunal and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-13
  advance incrementshigher educational qualificationcivil servantservice tribunalleave to appealrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking to annul recovery notices regarding advance increments and to secure four advance increments for possessing higher educational qualifications. The core legal questions involve whether the recruitment rules prescribing a higher educational qualification for the post of Stenographer in Pakistan Railways superseded earlier federal office memorandums, and whether advance increments for higher qualifications apply to promotees or are restricted to direct recruits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised merit detailed examination regarding the applicability of the relevant recruitment rules and the distinction between promotion and direct recruitment in the context of advance increments for higher qualifications. The key principle laid down is that the entitlement of civil servants to advance increments for higher educational qualifications under government policy must be evaluated in light of the applicable recruitment rules and the mode of appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant promoted as a Stenographer is entitled to advance increments for possessing higher educational qualifications under the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 29-6-1991?
  • Do the recruitment rules for Pakistan Railways prescribing B.A./B.Sc. as the basic educational qualification for Stenographers supersede earlier federal government office memorandums prescribing lower qualifications?
  • Is a civil servant who entered service through promotion rather than direct recruitment eligible for advance increments granted for higher qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Ali vs Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad and 8 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 274 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sheikhupura1996 PLC 692 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Sultan, Section Officer, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and anothers vs Prime Minster of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-27
  seniority disputecivil servicedeputationistOffice Management Groupservice appealcadre seniorityESTACODE
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals regarding seniority disputes between civil servants in the Office Management Group (O.M.G.) and deputationists subsequently absorbed into the O.M.G. The core legal question was whether these absorbed officers were entitled to claim seniority from their initial date of deputation or from the date of their regular absorption into the O.M.G. The Supreme Court held that seniority must be determined according to the instructions contained in the ESTACODE (Serial No. 30, Para 6). The Court clarified that a civil servant cannot claim seniority in a new cadre until they formally become a member of that cadre. If a deputationist had the option to accept or refuse the appointment, seniority counts from the date of transfer. Conversely, if the transfer was compulsory, previous continuous service may be counted. As the record failed to clarify whether the respondents had the right to refuse the offer, the Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal's orders and remanded the cases to the departmental authority for re-determination of seniority based on these established principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist become a member of the borrowing office's cadre immediately upon deputation or only upon formal absorption?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority in a new cadre from a date prior to their formal absorption into that cadre?
  • How is the seniority of a deputationist determined upon their permanent transfer to a borrowing office?
  • Does the right to refuse an offer of appointment in a borrowing office affect the determination of a civil servant's seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State and another1996 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-20
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationpolice excesseswrongful confinementillegal gratificationleave to appealcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the confirmation of pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners—police officials accused of abducting, wrongfully confining, and injuring the complainant, and extorting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, facing serious allegations of taking the law into their own hands while serving as police officials, were entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the investigation prima facie connects the accused with the commission of heinous offences and shows no mala fides or enmity in the case's registration, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused. The key principle laid down is that members of the police force, whose duty is to maintain public order and enforce the law, forfeit their claim to extraordinary discretionary pre-arrest relief when credible allegations of abusing their official authority to commit crimes are established on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether police officials facing credible allegations of abduction and extortion are entitled to pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the lack of mala fides or enmity in the registration of a criminal case disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is leave to appeal maintainable against the high court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail when prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And 2 Other vs Muhammad Aslam And 4 Other1996 KLR Civil Cases 516 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arifuddin vs Mujeebunissa And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 351 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arifuddin vs Mst. Mujeebunnissa and 3 others1996 CLC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1996 MLD 612 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Messrs Airport Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing1996 PLC 736 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Saeed vs Shamim-Ul-Haq1996 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21
  leave to appealcondonation of delayremand of suitreview petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside an appellate dismissal of a time-barred suit and remanded it for fresh decision after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in condoning a prolonged delay in filing the appeal where the delay was largely attributable to the pendency of a review petition before the trial court. The Supreme Court held that since the trial court took an inordinate time in deciding the review application and there was no contribution to the delay by the opposing party, the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to condone the delay in furtherance of the policy of law that disputes should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the remand order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in condoning a long delay in filing an appeal where the delay in deciding a review petition was caused by the trial court itself?
  • Should legal disputes be decided on merits rather than on technicalities such as limitation?
  • Whether special leave to appeal should be granted against an order of the High Court remanding a suit for fresh decision after condoning delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Qas1m Ali And Other vs Pervaiz Iqbal Ksh. Zia-Ur-RehmanK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 66 · Board of Revenue · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and others vs Nawab and others1996 CLC 1692 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 762 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and 63 others vs Messrs Mercurry Garments1996 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 345 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Tufail Hussain and another1996 CLC 1565 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The Chief Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.1996 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-19
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantreasonable opportunityminor penaltynatural justicemala fidesservice tribunalstoppage of increments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his departmental punishment of stoppage of two annual increments before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, alleging procedural unfairness due to the denial of certain documents during disciplinary proceedings and asserting mala fides by the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the petitioner had admitted to the omission during a personal hearing and pleading for leniency. Upon review, the Supreme Court addressed whether the failure to provide requested documents vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the requirement for a 'reasonable opportunity' under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, does not equate disciplinary inquiries to criminal trials. It clarified that such proceedings are administrative processes intended to reach a prudent conclusion regarding misconduct. Consequently, the omission to provide documents was deemed inconsequential, particularly given the minor nature of the penalty and the petitioner's prior admission of guilt. The Court further affirmed that allegations of mala fides require substantial proof, which the petitioner failed to provide, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a civil servant with requested documents during a disciplinary inquiry automatically vitiate the proceedings?
  • Is a disciplinary inquiry against a civil servant equivalent to a criminal trial regarding the application of procedural rules?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the propriety of a disciplinary order after having admitted to the omission and pleaded for leniency during a personal hearing?
  • Does the bar on appeals against minor penalties under the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act 1974 extend to challenges regarding the legality or jurisdiction of the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Station House Officer, Police Station Basti1996 P Cr. L J 583 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Jamaluddin1996 SCMR 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-19
  personal requirementejectmentjurisdictionmixed question of fact and lawrent controllertenancyappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order for the ejectment of a tenant on the grounds of the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Rent Controller's factual findings regarding personal requirement, and whether a tenant can raise a jurisdictional objection—specifically that the premises constituted a 'hotel' and thus fell outside the Rent Controller's jurisdiction—for the first time during the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional plea, being a mixed question of fact and law, could not be raised for the first time in appeal without having been pleaded or evidenced before the Rent Controller. Furthermore, the Court found the landlord's personal requirement was substantiated by evidence. The Court established the principle that a legal plea founded upon a factual basis must be raised before the trial court to allow for evidence to be led; it cannot be introduced for the first time before an appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant raise the plea that the premises are a 'hotel' to challenge the Rent Controller's jurisdiction for the first time in appeal?
  • Is a legal plea that is founded on a factual basis permissible for the first time before an appellate forum?
  • Does the term 'hotel' in the context of rent laws include establishments that only provide refreshments without lodging?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Hafiz Muhammad Akbar Chughtai and 6 others1996 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-14
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-Ishhadamendment of plaintrepeal of statutesaving clauseIslamic lawpre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit in 1985 under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Following the repeal of the 1913 Act by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the petitioner sought to amend his plaint to incorporate the performance of 'Talbs' as required under Islamic law. The trial court and appellate courts rejected the amendment and the suit. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor could amend a pending suit, filed under the repealed 1913 Act, to include the fulfillment of 'Talbs' to satisfy the requirements of the 1991 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's suit was not covered by the saving clause of the 1991 Act as no judgment or decree had been passed by the cut-off date of 31-7-1986. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the requirement of 'Talbs' does not arise in cases instituted under laws declared void by the Said Kamal Shah and Sardar Ali judgments. The principle established is that amendments to introduce 'Talbs' are impermissible in such pending pre-emption litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff amend a pre-emption plaint to include the fulfillment of 'Talbs' in a suit filed under the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Does the saving clause of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 apply to pre-emption suits where no judgment or decree was passed before 31-7-1986?
  • Is the requirement of making 'Talbs' applicable to pre-emption cases instituted under laws declared void by the Supreme Court in the Said Kamal Shah and Sardar Ali judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Rahi and anothers vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 41996 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-18
  pro forma promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeservice lawcompetent authorityadministrative powerremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had remanded a service matter to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department for a decision regarding the respondent's pro forma promotion. The core legal question was whether the SGA&I Department possessed the legal authority to approve or disapprove recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) regarding promotions, specifically in light of the amended Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the SGA&I Department lacked the authority to interfere with the D.P.C.'s recommendations at the time the decision was made. The Court affirmed the principle that under the amended Rule 6, the Secretary of the relevant Department is the sole competent authority to act upon D.P.C. recommendations for appointments to specific BPS posts, rendering the SGA&I Department's refusal to approve the promotion legally ineffective. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order to remit the case to the Secretary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the SGA&I Department have the authority to approve or disapprove recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Who is the competent authority to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for appointments to BPS-16 and 17 posts under the amended Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be selected for promotion solely on the basis of eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Rahi and another vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 41996 PLC (C.S.) 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-18
  pro forma promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeservice rulesadministrative authoritycivil servicepromotion eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the promotion of a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the Services, General Administration and Information (SGA&I) Department possessed the legal authority to approve or disapprove recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding pro forma promotion, particularly in light of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the SGA&I Department lacked the requisite authority to interfere with the DPC's recommendations. The Court held that under the amended Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the Secretary of the concerned Department—in this case, the Agriculture Department—held the exclusive competence to act upon DPC recommendations for posts in BPS-16 and 17. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department for appropriate action, establishing the principle that administrative authority over promotions must strictly adhere to the specific powers vested by the governing service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the SGA&I Department have the legal authority to approve or disapprove recommendations made by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Who is the competent authority to act upon recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee for posts in BPS-16 and 17 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Can a service tribunal remand a matter to a departmental secretary for a fresh decision on a promotion recommendation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Naseem vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujranwala Zone and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  service tribunalseniority listnecessary partiesnon-joinder of partiespetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning a seniority list on the ground that the petitioner failed to implead eighteen affected persons. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal was justified in non-suiting the petitioner for failing to implead the necessary parties, particularly when an oral request to implead them was made in response to an objection raised by the opposing side. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the justification of the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on this ground under the circumstances of the case, establishing that the question of proper parties and oral requests for impleading them requires detailed examination upon appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal for failure to implead affected persons when an oral request to implead them was made?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Bedar and others vs Muhammad Aslam Pervez and others1996 CLC 385 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Badar vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 209 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 8 others vs Municipal Committee, Hasilpur and 21996 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 8 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1996 CLC 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The State1996 MLD 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs S.H.O. and others1996 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 74) · Board of Revenue · 1995-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad Latif1996 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Nafeesa Khatoon1996 PLD Karachi 340 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-24
  rent appealeviction applicationdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementchange of ownershipsuitability of premisesfundamental right to trade
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two first rent appeals filed by tenants against eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller in favour of a landlady (respondent). The landlady sought eviction on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement for herself to run a boutique and for her son to start a general merchandise business. The High Court evaluated the evidence regarding rent payment and statutory notices under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The Court set aside the finding on default, holding that no default occurred as the tenants had deposited rent under pending miscellaneous proceedings and complied with Section 16 orders upon proper notice. However, regarding personal bona fide requirement, the Court upheld the Rent Controller's findings. It held that once bona fide requirement is established, the landlord has the sole prerogative to decide the suitability of the premises for their business. Furthermore, a landlord’s right to engage in lawful trade is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, granting the tenants four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord's claim for bona fide personal requirement be rejected solely on the ground that the proposed business may not be suitable or profitable in the rented premises?
  • Whether the tenant or the court has the authority to dictate to a landlord how or where to conduct their business once bona fide requirement is established?
  • Does a tenant commit default in rent payment under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if they continue depositing rent in court during a dispute over notice of ownership change?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1996 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-26
  civil serviceretrospective promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeefitness for promotionconstitutional petitionmala fidewithdrawal of promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition regarding his promotion. The appellant, an employee of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission, was cleared for promotion to Senior Scale Stenographer (B-15) effective from 17-2-1990, but declined the promotion demanding it be given retrospective effect from 1-1-1986. The Departmental Promotion Committee had previously considered his case and found him unfit for promotion on the earlier date, leading the department to subsequently withdraw the promotion order due to his refusal. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court correctly declined relief against the department's refusal to grant retrospective promotion and whether the withdrawal of the promotion was justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Departmental Promotion Committee's assessment of fitness based on the appellant's performance record could not be questioned in writ jurisdiction absent allegations of mala fides. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the promotion order was justified as the appellant forced the department's hand through his unreasonable refusal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decision of a Departmental Promotion Committee regarding an employee's fitness for promotion based on performance record be challenged in writ jurisdiction in the absence of mala fides?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to claim retrospective promotion when the Departmental Promotion Committee previously found them unfit for promotion from that earlier date?
  • Are departmental authorities justified in withdrawing a promotion order if the employee refuses to accept it unless granted from an earlier retrospective date?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs D.C.O, Etc.(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 187) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Another vs The State1996 MLD 607 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 440 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-23
  narcotics possessionprohibition enforcementchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtrecovery witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of 20 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concerned the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the absence of independent recovery witnesses, the propriety of the complainant acting as the Investigating Officer, and the reliability of the Chemical Examiner’s report due to chain of custody concerns. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the absence of independent witnesses was justified by the circumstances of night-time patrolling and the complainant acting as the Investigating Officer is admissible if corroborated, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court identified fatal gaps in the chain of custody, including unexplained delays in dispatching the sample, the failure to examine the official responsible for safe custody, and discrepancies between the sealing method and the weight of the recovered substance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a night-time search necessarily violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the evidence of a police officer who acts as both the complainant and the Investigating Officer admissible in a criminal trial?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner and a lack of evidence regarding safe custody create reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf and anothers vs The State1996 CLC 466 · Board of Revenue · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan1996 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-05
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderdouble jeopardyconstitutional petitioncriminal historydetention orderpolitical party membership
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan, under the West Pakistan (Maintenance of Public Order) Ordinance, 1960, against the petitioner's father. The detention was predicated on the detenu's history of numerous criminal cases and alleged involvement in militant activities. The core legal question was whether past criminal history, including convictions and pending trials, constitutes a valid ground for preventive detention, and whether membership in a political party justifies such action. The Lahore High Court held that the detention order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that preventive detention cannot be based on past criminal acts for which a person has already been prosecuted, as this violates the principle against double jeopardy. Furthermore, the Court ruled that membership in a recognized political party is not an offense, and detention orders must be supported by concrete, current material rather than vague, whimsical allegations. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu, emphasizing that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for punitive measures.

  Questions settled

  • Can past criminal cases, whether pending or resulting in conviction, form a valid basis for an order of preventive detention?
  • Does the detention of a person based on criminal charges for which they have already been tried violate the principle against double jeopardy?
  • Is membership in a recognized political party sufficient grounds for ordering preventive detention?
  • Must a detention order be supported by concrete material, or is the subjective opinion of a District Magistrate sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Memon vs Province of Sindh and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 300 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Mangi vs Saso and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan alias 'Achi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Zaidi vs Water and Power Development Authority1996 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  move-overservice benefitsWAPDAlength of servicepensionable serviceFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the denial of a move-over from B-18 to B-19 within the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, originally a government servant absorbed into WAPDA, contended that his previous continuous government service should be counted toward the length of service required for the move-over. He argued that since WAPDA already acknowledges this prior service for pension and earned leave purposes, it is inconsistent to exclude it for move-over eligibility. The core legal question is whether the length of service criteria for move-over to a higher pay scale must include prior government service when such service is already recognized by the employer for other benefits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the petitioner's submission that the criteria for counting service should be consistent across different employment benefits, thereby setting the stage for a determination on the applicability of service counting rules.

  Questions settled

  • Should previous government service be counted toward the length of service requirement for move-over to a higher pay scale in WAPDA?
  • Does the recognition of prior service for pension and leave benefits necessitate its inclusion for move-over eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Zahid Chaudhry vs Multi Professional Cooperative1996 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-28
  stay of executionmoney decreedecretal amountfurnishing of securityappellate discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a Regular First Appeal, whereby the execution of a money decree was stayed subject to the petitioner depositing the decretal amount in the Executing Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in ordering the deposit of the decretal amount instead of accepting security under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that under Order XLI Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellate court possesses the discretion in money decree appeals to order either the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of security for staying execution, unless the appeal must succeed due to an error apparent on the record. The Court concluded that the discretion was validly exercised and dismissed the petition, laying down that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) and Rule 8 proviso (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be read together regarding the stay of execution in monetary decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can condition a stay of execution of a money decree on the deposit of the decretal amount rather than furnishing security?
  • How are the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be read together in appeals against money decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Wattoo vs The State1996 MLD 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Director, Schools (Elementary Education), Multan Region, Multan and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 305 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 843 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-23
  narcoticsheroin recoverychain of custodyfalse implicationcriminal appealacquittalProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha Camp at Khushab, for the possession of 700 grams of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions concerned the integrity of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the chain of custody of the recovered sample and the allegations of false implication due to personal enmity. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the sample parcel, as the complainant retained it in his personal possession for one day before depositing it at the police station, creating a significant gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the court found the appellant's defense of enmity with the police officials credible, given the lack of evidence to rule out tampering. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the chain of custody of contraband is broken and unexplained, the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retention of a contraband sample in the personal custody of a complainant for one day without explanation create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove that the sample parcel was not tampered with?
  • Is an acquittal warranted when the prosecution fails to address credible allegations of personal enmity between the accused and the investigating police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State and others1996 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular evidencechance witnessinterested witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of criminal appeals arising from the murder of a student in Quetta, stemming from an inter-family retaliatory dispute. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, the status of eyewitnesses as chance or interested witnesses, and the reliability of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses. Holding that the evidence against one appellant was reliable and corroborated while lacking against another, the Court maintained the conviction of Muhammad Akram, acquitted Mir Hassan due to lack of corroboration, upheld the acquittal of Muhammad Arif, and dismissed the appeals filed by the State and the complainant. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of chance or related witnesses can form the basis of a conviction if it is natural, convincing, and corroborated on material particulars with respect to the specific accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does a minor discrepancy regarding the timing of the First Information Report vitiate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can the conviction of an accused be sustained when independent corroboration is missing with respect to his specific role?
  • Whether the evidence of a related and interested witness loses its evidentiary value solely due to domestic affinity with the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 3 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Town Planning and 3 others1996 CLC 727 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Nikku and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Mst. Razia Begum and others1996 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Mst. Razia Begum And Other1996 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Abdul Aziz and 2 others1996 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31
  Lambardari appointmentCivil revisionRejection of plaintCause of actionAdministrative discretionSpecific reliefRevenue authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate order that set aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question was whether a civil suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable to challenge the administrative appointment of a Lambardar by Revenue Authorities. The High Court held that the appointment of a Lambardar is a purely administrative function falling exclusively within the domain of Revenue Officers. The court determined that no individual holds a vested right to such an appointment, meaning the dispute does not involve a legal character or right to property under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, nor does it establish a legal obligation under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action. The court distinguished the strict requirements for a civil suit from the broader scope of Constitutional petitions, ultimately allowing the revision, setting aside the appellate order, and restoring the trial court's rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a Lambardar a matter that can be challenged through a civil suit for declaration and injunction?
  • Does an applicant for the position of Lambardar possess a vested right to be appointed?
  • Can a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 be maintained regarding the administrative appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justified when the subject matter falls exclusively within the administrative domain of Revenue Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice (Justice Division), Islamabad through Secretary and another1996 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  public service commissionconditional recommendationvested rightservice recordjudicial appointmentadvisory bodywithdrawal of nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed his challenge to the withdrawal of his nomination for the post of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that his nomination was withdrawn without a hearing and that his service record, which contained adverse entries, had been expunged. The Supreme Court addressed whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment upon a conditional recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission and whether the Commission's advisory role binds the appointing authority. The Court held that a conditional recommendation by the Commission, subject to verification of character and antecedents, does not create a vested right to appointment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Commission acts as an advisory body and is entitled to re-evaluate a candidate's suitability based on their service record. Finding that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that adverse entries were expunged and that the Commission acted within its authority to withdraw the nomination, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conditional recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission create a vested right to appointment for a candidate?
  • Is the appointing authority legally bound to accept the recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission?
  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission withdraw a nomination upon re-evaluating a candidate's service record and character antecedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Etc vs Riaz Hussain Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 3) · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22
  murdercompromisewaiver of qisasta'zirdiscretionary powercompoundable offencessocietal interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a murder trial where a compromise was reached between the appellants and the legal heirs of the victim. The core legal question was whether a trial court retains the discretionary power to award punishment by way of Ta'zir under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, notwithstanding the waiver of Qisas and the submission of a compromise by the legal heirs. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confers an unfettered judicial discretion on the court to award punishment by way of Ta'zir even after the waiver or compounding of Qisas, particularly when the society or public right is affected by brutal crimes. The court established that the provisions of Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are interdependent, meaning the court's permission is mandatory for compounding an offence, and the court may refuse such permission or impose Ta'zir to safeguard societal interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can award punishment by way of Ta'zir under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after the waiver of Qisas and the execution of a compromise between the parties?
  • Is the permission of the court mandatory for the compounding of an offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the waiver of Qisas by the legal heirs of a victim take away the trial court's discretion to punish an offender under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 688 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Muhammad Ali and another1996 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20
  pre-emption suitLand Reforms Regulationlimitation periodinvoluntary alienationsecond appealcourt-fee deficiencyIslamic Injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption concerning land purchased by the respondents. The primary legal questions concerned whether the appeal was time-barred due to re-filing delays, whether the appeal was incompetent for lacking a trial court decree-sheet, whether the suit abated following the declaration of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, and whether the Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115) invalidated the pre-emption decree. The Court held that the appeal was filed within time, as delays resulting from court holidays and office procedures are excluded from limitation calculations. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that pre-emption decrees are involuntary alienations not governed by the restrictions on voluntary sales under M.L.R. 115. Furthermore, it affirmed that pre-emption decrees passed prior to August 1, 1986, were saved from the effects of the Shariat declarations. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellant, establishing that court-ordered pre-emption rights remain protected under the relevant statutory amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time taken to remove office objections on a memorandum of appeal count towards the limitation period?
  • Are pre-emption decrees considered involuntary alienations exempt from the restrictions of the Land Reforms Regulation?
  • Does the failure to affix proper court-fee on a memorandum of appeal justify immediate rejection without an opportunity to rectify the deficiency?
  • Were pre-emption decrees passed before August 1, 1986, saved from the effects of the declaration that the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 was against the Injunctions of Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1996 MLD 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →