Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Malik Mushtaq, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 184 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Yousaf Ullah Khan vs The State And Another1996 MLD 762 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Pervez vs Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and anothers1996 MLD 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Pervez vs Muhammad Saleem Akhtar And Another1996 MLD 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Haji Muhammad Hayat1996 MLD 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Iqbal vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and another1996 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a land acquisition award. The core legal question was whether a Land Acquisition Collector is legally barred from relying on a negotiated settlement between landowners and the acquiring agency when determining compensation, and whether landowners who accepted such compensation are estopped from challenging the award. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that while a Collector must independently determine fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they may legitimately incorporate a reasonable negotiated settlement into the award. The Court established that a negotiated settlement reflecting a 'willing buyer-willing seller' dynamic is a valid basis for valuation. Furthermore, landowners who have acted upon such a settlement by accepting payment without protest are estopped from later challenging the award. The Collector’s reliance on such an agreement does not constitute an abdication of statutory duty, provided the Collector independently evaluates the reasonableness of the compensation. The Court affirmed that appellate courts need not re-discuss evidence where lower courts have properly appraised it.
Questions settled- Can a Land Acquisition Collector rely on a negotiated settlement between the parties to determine compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Are landowners estopped from challenging an acquisition award after accepting compensation based on a negotiated settlement?
- Does the reliance of a Collector on a negotiated settlement constitute an abdication of the statutory duty to determine fair compensation?
- Malik Muhammad Ayub Awan vs (Mrs.) Shamim Dadi And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 195 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar vs S.H.O.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 633 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Malik Karam Bux & Co., Ltd., Lahore vs I. T.O. Companies-21, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 396 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Gul Hasan & Co. and 5 others vs Allied Bank of Pakistan1996 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of a High Court Appeal due to the appellants' failure to furnish a fresh solvent surety under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants also challenged the trial court's jurisdiction following the enactment of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992, which enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court as a Special Court. The Supreme Court held that the security already furnished to a bank for securing a loan can be accepted as security for the purposes of admitting an appeal under Section 12(5), provided its current value is sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that statutory amendments altering pecuniary jurisdiction or changing the forum are procedural in nature and operate retrospectively unless they affect vested rights or cause injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and transferred the suit to the competent Special Court.
Questions settled- Can a security originally furnished to a bank for securing a loan be accepted as valid security for admitting an appeal under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a statutory amendment that alters or enhances the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court operate retrospectively on pending cases?
- Can the consent of parties confer jurisdiction upon a court if its statutory jurisdiction has been taken away by a legislative amendment?
- Malik Ghulam Hussain vs The Presiding Officer, Ivth Sindh Labour1996 PLC 278 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
- Malik Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs ICI Pakistan Ltd And Another(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 35) · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- Malik Anjum Farooq Piracha vs Ch. Muhammad Asif and another1996 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court on medical grounds. The respondent is facing trial for offences including murder and attempt to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail to an accused suffering from ischemic heart disease who had remained in custody for a prolonged period, and whether such an order warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail was justifiable, taking into account the medical certificate from the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, the duration of incarceration, and the delay in the trial not attributable to the accused. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down that appellate interference with a High Court's discretionary grant of bail on medical and statutory delay grounds is unwarranted where proper medical evidence and prolonged custody are established.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted on medical grounds to an accused suffering from heart disease?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the trial being in sight justify the grant of bail?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail?
- Makhdoom Ghulam Muhammad Alias Khaliquzzaman vs The Returning1996 MLD 1675 · Election Tribunal · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom Ghulam Muhammad alias Khaliquzzaman vs The Returning1996 MLD 1675 · Election Tribunal · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Major (Rtd.) Atta Muhammad Khan and 7 others vs Land Acquisition1996 CLC 276 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Majeed Ahmed vs The State1996 MLD 1650 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
- Maj.-Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Mst. Kanwal Rabbani and another1996 P Cr. L J 2030 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mai Nooran vs N.L.C. & M. ShareefK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 393 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mahr Muhammad Shoaib vs Estate Officer, Islamabad and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1227 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mahmud Ahmad vs Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Department, filed a Constitutional petition challenging his transfer order, alleging it was mala fide and orchestrated by a local Member of the Provincial Assembly due to personal animosity. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against a transfer order of a civil servant, particularly when mala fides are alleged, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, including transfers, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Court emphasized that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, creates a distinct hierarchy for redressing civil servant grievances, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that allegations of mala fides do not provide a basis to bypass this statutory bar, as such claims must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a Constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
- Can allegations of mala fides in a transfer order bypass the jurisdictional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a transfer order of a civil servant considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Mahmood-Ur-Rehman vs The President, National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and another1996 PLC 571 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Khan and others vs Muhammad Ashiq and others1996 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption matter and is time-barred by forty days. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of the explanation provided by the petitioners for condonation of delay, namely an alleged oral assurance of an out-of-court settlement by the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the uncorroborated affidavit of one petitioner, unsupported by any independent outsider and lacking credibility given the parties' twenty-seven years of litigation and legal representation, fails to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had no case on merits as the underlying suit was never decreed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation as well as on merits, declining to grant special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an uncorroborated affidavit of a petitioner regarding an oral out-of-court compromise constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can a petition be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation when no credible explanation for the delay is furnished?
- Mahmood and another vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore1996 SCMR 1508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal with leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an application for the restoration of a dismissed first appeal against orders under the Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1973. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the restoration application without issuing personal notice to the appellants, given that their engaged counsel's Vakalatnama expressly restricted his appearance to the Rawalpindi Bench, whereas the appeal had been transferred to the principal seat at Lahore. The Supreme Court held that where a counsel's engagement is restricted to a specific bench and the case is transferred elsewhere, the court office is duty-bound to issue personal notice to the litigants. The Court set aside the dismissal orders, condoned the delay in filing, and directed that the appeal be restored and heard after proper notice to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that procedural default cannot be visited upon a litigant who lacks knowledge of proceedings due to the court's failure to serve personal notice when their counsel is not authorized to appear at the transferee station.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing an appeal for non-appearance without personal notice to the appellants when their counsel's Vakalatnama restricts his appearance to a different bench?
- Does the transfer of a case from one bench to the principal seat of the High Court necessitate issuing a fresh personal notice to the litigants if their engaged advocate cannot appear at the transferee station?
- How is the period of limitation computed when challenging an order dismissing an application for restoration of an appeal?
- Mahmood Ali vs Government of Pakistan through the Additional1996 PLC (C.S.) 823 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Alam vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 689 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-24Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ahmed vs The State1996 MLD 180 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Ma. Khan & Co vs Pakistan Railway Employees' Cooperative Housing1996 CLC 45 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute between a contractor and the Pakistan Railway Employees' Cooperative Housing Society regarding construction contracts. The plaintiffs sought to make an arbitration award a rule of the court, while the defendants challenged the validity of the arbitration proceedings and the court's jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether a valid arbitration agreement existed without a signed contract, whether the dispute was barred by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the defendants were properly served with arbitration notices. The court held that an arbitration agreement exists if terms are reduced to writing, even without signatures. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, did not apply as the plaintiff was not a society member and the dispute was commercial in nature. The court found the defendants were duly served and their objections were time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration agreement is binding if in writing, regardless of signatures, and that service of notice is presumed valid when properly addressed unless proven otherwise.
Questions settled- Is an arbitration agreement binding if it is in writing but not signed by the parties?
- Does the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, bar civil court jurisdiction over disputes between a non-member contractor and a housing society?
- Can a party challenge an arbitration award on the ground of non-service if they refused to accept properly addressed notices?
- Does the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award commence from the date of knowledge or the date of service?
- Ma J Tharparkar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Revenue Division And Chairman Central Board Of Revenue, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 653 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
- M1sseli Dawakhana, Lahore vs 1To, Circle-14, Zone(a), Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 388 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- M.O.H. Iqbal vs M. Uthaman and Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 52 · Kerala High Court · 1993-06-18Read full judgment →
- M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs (Appraisements), Customs House, Karachi1996 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Constitutional petition seeking action for contempt against the Collector of Customs for failing to comply with a previous court order regarding the re-determination of customs duty exemptions for imported card clothing. The core legal questions were whether a separate Constitutional petition is the appropriate remedy for enforcing a previous court judgment and whether a quasi-judicial authority may abdicate its decision-making duty by awaiting administrative advice from the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Court held that a Constitutional petition is not the maintainable remedy for enforcing a prior judgment; rather, a miscellaneous application in the original case is the proper procedure. Furthermore, the Court ruled that quasi-judicial authorities cannot defer their adjudicatory functions to administrative departments like the Ministry of Law and Justice. The key principle laid down is that quasi-judicial forums must exercise their own independent legal judgment and cannot abdicate their statutory responsibilities by seeking or awaiting external administrative instructions, as this undermines the due process and the nature of their quasi-judicial mandate.
Questions settled- Is a fresh Constitutional petition maintainable for the purpose of enforcing a judgment rendered in an earlier Constitutional petition?
- Can a quasi-judicial authority defer its decision-making process to await the advice of an administrative ministry?
- What is the appropriate procedural remedy for a party seeking to enforce a previous court order that has been disregarded?
- M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Federal Government through Secretary, Cabinet1996 CLC 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an Advocate seeking to declare the allotment of public property and plots to Parliamentarians in Islamabad as illegal, unconstitutional, and un-Islamic. The core legal questions involved whether the reservation of plots for Parliamentarians violated Articles 66 and 173(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether such executive action lacked lawful authority or suffered from mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that Article 66 pertains only to parliamentary proceedings and speech, and does not disqualify members from holding property as citizens. Furthermore, the court held that the transfer of State land within Islamabad is governed by the Capital Development Authority Act along with its rules and regulations, satisfying the legal requirements under Article 173(5), and that mala fides cannot be presumed. The court also noted that since reservation of plots for other professional classes like lawyers has been customary and justifiable, similar treatment for Parliamentarians is not open to objection. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the allotment of developed plots to Parliamentarians violates Article 66 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the transfer of State land within the capital area of Islamabad require a specific law under Article 173(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can mala fides be presumed against an official act without concrete proof?
- Whether the reservation of plots in development schemes for specific classes of persons is lawful under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- M.D. Tahir vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- M.A. Rashid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
- M.A. Rashid Rana vs Secretary Home, Government of Punjab and 81996 PLC (C.S.) 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether a person whose seniority is adversely affected is a necessary party in proceedings before the Service Tribunal and whether decisions of the Service Tribunal are judgments in rem or in personam. The appellant, M.A. Rashid Rana, challenged Punjab Service Tribunal judgments that granted ante-dated confirmations and promotions to certain police officers, lowering the appellant's seniority. The Supreme Court held that the judgments pronounced by the Service Tribunal determined inter se the rights of the parties before it and were judgments in personam, not judgments in rem, and thus did not bind the appellant who was not a party. The Court further ruled that although Article 212 of the Constitution does not restrict appeals solely to parties before the Tribunal, a person adversely affected by such a judgment may maintain an appeal before the Supreme Court with leave when departmental remedies are practically foreclosed. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's judgments, and remanded the cases for rehearing after impleading the appellant as a respondent.
Questions settled- Whether decisions of the Service Tribunal are judgments in rem or judgments in personam?
- Whether a person not impleaded as a party before the Service Tribunal whose seniority is adversely affected can maintain an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Whether judgments of the Service Tribunal bind a person who was not a party to the proceedings?
- M.A. Rashid Rana vs Secretary Home, Government of Punjab and 181996 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Five civil appeals were brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by an appellant who challenged orders passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal granting ante-dated confirmations and promotions to several respondents on account of gallantry. The appellant, whose seniority was adversely affected, was not impleaded in the Tribunal proceedings and filed the appeals after gaining knowledge through departmental implementation notifications. The Supreme Court first condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding limitation runs from the date of knowledge for a non-party. On merits, the Court determined that judgments of the Service Tribunal are judgments in personam rather than judgments in rem, as the statutory scope of judgments in rem is restricted under the relevant evidence law to probate, matrimonial, admiralty, and insolvency jurisdictions. Consequently, such decisions bind only the parties before the Tribunal and do not bind strangers. The Court held that an adversely affected civil servant not joined before the Service Tribunal is a necessary party and is entitled to maintain an appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with leave of the Court. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the appeals to the Tribunal for rehearing after impleading the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the decisions rendered by a Service Tribunal operate as judgments in rem or judgments in personam?
- Whether a civil servant whose seniority is adversely affected by a Service Tribunal's decision is a necessary party to those proceedings?
- Can a person who was not a party before the Service Tribunal maintain an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- From what point does limitation commence for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court by an aggrieved person who was not impleaded in proceedings before the Service Tribunal?
- M. Yakoob and others vs Abdul Ghaffar1996 P Cr. L J 867 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- M. Latif vs The State1996 MLD 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail for an offence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted after the trial had commenced and a previous application had been dismissed. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the case warranted further inquiry into his guilt. This conclusion was based on the absence of marks of violence on the prosecutrix, the failure to recover the alleged weapon, and evidence of long-standing enmity between the parties, suggesting potential false implication. The court affirmed that a second bail application is maintainable when the prior application was not decided on merits. It further established that the statutory right to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where reasonable grounds for guilt are absent, overrides the general judicial practice of refusing bail once a trial has commenced.
Questions settled- Is a second bail application maintainable if the first application was not decided on merits?
- Does the commencement of a trial automatically bar the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can bail be granted under the 'further inquiry' provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the absence of physical injuries on a victim in a rape case constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- M. D. Tahir, Advocate vs Province of the Punjab through its Chief1996 MLD 969 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- M. D. Tahir, Advocate vs Province of the Punjab Through Its Chief1996 MLD 969 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- M. D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan1996 PLD Lahore 658 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an advocate seeking a direction to the Federation of Pakistan to hold a referendum on introducing a Presidential system of government instead of the prevalent Parliamentary system. The core legal questions addressed were whether a citizen qualifies as an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to challenge the form of government, whether the discretionary power of the President or Prime Minister to hold a referendum under Article 48 of the Constitution is enforceable through a writ of mandamus, and whether the judiciary can interfere in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the executive. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as an 'aggrieved party' because no personal or proprietary rights were adversely affected, and that a citizen has no legal or specific right to compel the executive to exercise its discretion to hold a referendum. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional powers vested in the executive cannot be compelled through writ jurisdiction, and courts will not interfere with the trichotomy of powers established by the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether a citizen can be considered an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the prevalent Parliamentary system of government?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the President or the Prime Minister to exercise discretion under Article 48 of the Constitution to hold a referendum?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to interfere with matters pertaining to the exclusive domain of the executive under a written Constitution?
- M. Anwar Hussain and another vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 649 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
- M Anjh I Appel lant vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The provided text for the judgment is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to generate a summary, identify statutory provisions, extract keywords, or formulate legal questions based on the content of the case.
- M an Zoor vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Lutfullah vs Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VIII, Larkana1996 PLC 16 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
- Luqman vs The State1996 MLD 1884 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-16Read full judgment →
- Luqman and 6 others vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Ltaf Hussain vs The State1996 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of police officials when a cited public witness to the recovery was abandoned by the prosecution without sufficient justification. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that abandoning a key public witness, who allegedly attested the recovery, without proving they were won over is fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court drew an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, presuming that the withheld witness would not have supported the prosecution's version. The principle laid down is that police testimony alone is insufficient for conviction in recovery cases where public witnesses are available but withheld without valid reason, as the prosecution must produce the best available evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. The appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on police testimony when a cited public witness is abandoned without justification?
- Does the failure to produce a cited public witness warrant an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Is the prosecution required to produce public witnesses for recoveries made in populated areas?
- Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Sajjad Yunus vs Secretary, Establishment1996 PLC (C.S.) 753 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
- Lok Nath & Company vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1996 PTD 860 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Livestock Employees' Union and others vs Government of Balochistan, Live Stock Department through Secretary, Quetta and others1996 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions filed by employees of the Livestock and Forest Departments of Balochistan, who challenged the High Court’s decision setting aside their trade union registrations. The core legal question was whether these employees, as civil servants, were 'workmen' employed in an 'industry' entitled to form trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the departments in question do not constitute an 'industry.' The Court reasoned that an 'industry' requires an organized, systematic enterprise dependent on the cooperation between labor and capital for the production, distribution, or consumption of wealth or material service. Because these departments perform sovereign and administrative functions funded by public exchequer rather than commercial activity, they fall outside the definition of an industry. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that civil servants engaged in the administration of the State are excluded from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The judgment clarifies that the nature of the enterprise, rather than the technical designation of the employees, determines the applicability of labor laws.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance include government departments performing sovereign or administrative functions?
- Are civil servants employed in the administration of the State entitled to form trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- What are the essential ingredients required to classify an enterprise as an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance apply to employees of the Forest or Livestock Departments?
- Livestock Employees Union and others vs Government of Balochistan, Livestock Department through Secretary, Quetta and others1996 PLC 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the Livestock and Forest Departments, challenged the High Court's decision setting aside their trade union registration certificates. The core legal question was whether these government departments qualify as an "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether their employees, being civil servants, are entitled to form trade unions under that Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the departments in question perform sovereign and administrative functions rather than commercial or industrial activities. The Court affirmed that an "industry" requires organized activity involving the cooperation of labor and capital for the production or provision of material services, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that civil servants governed by specific service laws are excluded from the ambit of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, unless specifically included. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's finding that the registration of these unions was without lawful authority, as the departments did not constitute an industry and the employees were not entitled to the protections of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Questions settled- Does a government department performing sovereign or administrative functions constitute an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Are civil servants employed in government departments entitled to form trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply to employees engaged in the administration of the State?
- Liquat Umar vs S.D.M./Tribunal, Larkana and another1996 P Cr. L J 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a jail petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming their conviction and sentences for murder and murderous assault. The petitioners contended that the High Court failed to consider the evidence of the sole injured witness, who did not support the prosecution case, and failed to evaluate the defense plea. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not advert to the defense plea nor properly consider the effect of the testimony of the injured witness. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to allow for a reappraisal of the evidence in accordance with the principles of safe administration of justice in criminal cases.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the High Court fails to consider the testimony of an injured witness?
- Does the failure to evaluate the defense plea and evidence of material witnesses warrant a reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Liaqat And Others vs The State1996 MLD 922 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- Liaqat and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat And Another vs The State1996 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1996 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Liaqat Ali, who stood convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of Habibullah and making a murderous assault on Noor Muhammad. The core legal question concerns the effect of a genuine compromise between the petitioner and the major legal heirs of the victims. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in view of the compromise, where the heirs have forgiven the petitioner and the State does not oppose giving effect to the same, the petition should be converted into an appeal, and the conviction and sentence ought to be set aside. The key principle laid down is that valid compromises between parties in criminal matters regarding compoundable offences lead to the acquittal and release of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a criminal petition be converted into an appeal upon a compromise between the parties?
- Whether conviction and sentence can be set aside based on a compromise verified in the chamber of a judge?
- Do major legal heirs of victims have the right to forgive an offender in offences involving murder and assault?
- Liaqat Ali vs Muhammad Aslam and 5 others1996 P Cr. L J 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Arshad Mahmood Lodhi, Advocate1996 CLC 1562 · Bar Council Tribunal · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
- Liaqat a LI vs The State1996 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant was apprehended at the scene by relatives of the deceased, who produced him and the weapon of offence at the police station shortly after the incident. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the High Court dismissed his appeal. The appellant subsequently approached the Supreme Court with a significant delay of 2127 days, seeking condonation while also challenging the conviction on merits. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a time-barred appeal and the credibility of ocular testimony provided by interested witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, as the reasons provided for the delay were unsustainable. Furthermore, on merits, the Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the ocular testimony of the relatives was credible, as it was corroborated by the prompt arrest of the appellant at the scene and the recovery of the weapon stained with human blood. The Court reiterated that evidence cannot be discarded merely due to the witness's relationship with the deceased.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be entertained by the Supreme Court when it is filed with a delay of over 2000 days without sustainable grounds for condonation?
- Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of a weapon stained with human blood at the time of arrest sufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Leno Rozario vs Ghulam Muhammad Dossul1996 MLD 821 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
- Leno Rozario vs Ghul Am Muhammad Dossul1996 MLD 821 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
- Latif Ahmad vs Mst. Farrukh Sultana1996 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside the Rent Controller's dismissal of the respondent landlord's ejectment application. The respondent sought the eviction of the appellant tenant from two shops on the ground of personal requirement for her sons. The core legal question was whether a landlord's failure to plead and explain in the ejectment application why a previously vacated shop in the same market—which was re-let just months before filing the application—was unsuitable for her needs is fatal to the claim of personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that while a landlord generally has the prerogative to choose the premises best suited for their needs, the unexplained omission to disclose and justify the re-letting of the recently vacated shop situated in the same market renders the claim defective and fatal. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Rent Controller's dismissal of the rent application was restored, establishing that suppression of material facts regarding alternative vacant premises defeats a plea of personal requirement.
Questions settled- Is a landlord's omission to plead the unsuitability of a recently vacated shop fatal to an ejectment application based on personal requirement?
- Does a landlord have the unfettered prerogative to choose a particular premises for personal use without explaining the re-letting of other similar premises in the same building?
- What is the legal effect of failing to disclose in a rent application that alternative possession was obtained and re-let shortly before filing for eviction?
- Late Saifuddin Through His Legal Heirs vs Jameel Ahmed1996 MLD 566 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
- Late S.M. Younas Rizvi through Legal Heirs vs Afzal Qureshi1996 CLC 368 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector, Tarbela Dam Resettlement Organization, WAPDA, Ghazi and 2 others vs Hikmat Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1587 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector, Tarbela Dam Resettlement Organization, WAPDA, Ghazi And 2 Others vs Hikmat Khan And Another1996 MLD 1587 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
- Lall Zaman vs Safdar Ali Khan1996 MLD 860 · Northern Areas Chief Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
- Lal Shah, And Other vs The State through Colonization Officer, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 98) · Board of Revenue · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Lal Mir Khan vs Pakistan Forest Institute and 5 others1996 CLC 1647 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan and anothers vs Rehmatullah and 5 others1996 CLC 1696 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain vs Muhammad Akber and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Lal and 21 others vs The Member, Federal Land Commission and 3 others1996 CLC 308 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange Ltd. vs Asmatullah Sheikh1996 PLD Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange (G) Ltd. vs Asmatullah Sheikh1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
- Lahore Javid vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
- Lahore Grammar School (Pvt.) Ltd. and anothers vs Mst. Hameeda1996 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which reversed the trial court's decision and granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from opening and establishing a private school on a residential premises situated in a residential locality of Gulberg, Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether the conversion of a residential building into a commercial enterprise like a school is permissible under urban building regulations without proper authorization, whether local residents have the legal right to enforce such building regulations, and whether the anticipated establishment of a school constitutes an actionable private nuisance. The Lahore High Court held that the conversion of property inconsistent with the master plan or approved scheme is prohibited under the relevant building regulations, that residents of the area possess a vested right to seek enforcement of these regulations, and that the proposed establishment of a school in a residential zone constitutes a private nuisance warranting injunctive relief. The court laid down the principle that residents are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their properties in residential areas and can seek interim protection against threatened violations and nuisances before they materialize.
Questions settled- Whether the conversion of a residential property into a commercial school violates urban building regulations?
- Do residents of a locality have the right to seek enforcement of building regulations through a civil court?
- Does the anticipated opening of a school in a residential area constitute an actionable private nuisance?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted against a threatened injury or apprehended nuisance before it materializes?
- Lahore Diocesen Trust vs Messrs Glaxo Laboratories1996 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Lahore Diocesen Trust vs Glaxo Laboratories1996 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Lahore Cantt., Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Khanzada1996 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute regarding the ownership of a passage utilized by the petitioner, a cooperative housing society. The respondent filed a civil suit claiming ownership of the land, which the trial court initially rejected for failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The appellate court remanded the suit, and the High Court upheld this decision, ruling that the dispute did not touch the 'business of the society' and that the notice requirement under Section 70 did not apply to non-members. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively determine whether the dispute relates to the society's business, whether the notice requirement under Section 70 applies to non-members, and whether a suit filed without such notice can be dismissed if the statutory two-month period has elapsed during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court identified these as matters of general public importance requiring definitive adjudication.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding land ownership between a non-member and a cooperative society constitute a matter touching the 'business of the society' under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
- Does the requirement to serve a two-month notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 apply to a plaintiff who is not a member of the cooperative society?
- Can a plaint be rejected for failure to serve notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 if the statutory two-month notice period has already elapsed since the filing of the suit?
- Lahore cANTT Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Mian Ahmed Din and others1996 CLC 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
- Lafayette Industries Synthetics Labour Union through General1996 PLC 5 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
- Kouro vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Sugar Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore1996 SCMR 1883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court staying the execution of a money decree passed in favor of the appellant. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in staying the execution of a money decree under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the judgment-debtor is a public limited company. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while execution of a money decree is not stayed as a matter of routine practice, the appellate court has the discretion to stay execution upon being satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant. The Court laid down that substantial loss is distinct from irreparable loss and must be supported by tangible grounds, such as potential liquidation, attachment, or disruption in the running of a public limited company affecting employees, particularly where adequate security has been furnished.
Questions settled- Whether the execution of a money decree can be stayed under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes substantial loss for the purpose of granting a stay of execution under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the status of a judgment-debtor as a public limited company justify staying the execution of a money decree?
- Kirir vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for dacoity, abduction, and murder. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the reliability of ocular testimony and the identification parade conducted during a chaotic, dark night encounter. The trial court had convicted the appellant based on police testimony and an identification parade. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It established that identification evidence is inherently weak and requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, such as those outlined in the Police Rules, 1934. The court emphasized that the prosecution must affirmatively prove that precautions were taken to prevent witnesses from viewing the accused prior to the identification parade. Furthermore, the court ruled that ocular testimony claiming identification of strangers during a dark night encounter, relying solely on fleeting light from bombs, is insufficient for conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted due to the lack of credible, corroborative evidence.
Questions settled- Is identification evidence sufficient for conviction if the prosecution fails to prove that precautions were taken to prevent witnesses from seeing the accused before the identification parade?
- Can ocular testimony identifying strangers in a dark night encounter be relied upon when the only source of light is fleeting?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to follow the procedural requirements for identification parades as prescribed in the Police Rules, 1934?
- Kirir I Versus , Kirir I vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 569 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
- Khyber Electric Lamps vs Assistant Collector Customs, and 2 others1996 CLC 1365 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged demand notices issued by customs authorities for alleged short-levied duty on imported aluminum caps, previously classified as raw materials. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of writ petitions in fiscal matters despite alternate remedies, the procedural validity of the impugned notices under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, and the classification of the imported goods. The Court held that in fiscal matters, the exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a mandatory condition precedent for invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that the impugned notices were legally defective because they failed to provide a 'show-cause' opportunity as required by Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, acting instead as peremptory demands for payment. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 32 distinguishes between cases involving mens rea (subsection 2) and those involving inadvertence or error (subsection 3), with different limitation periods. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notices to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Is the exhaustion of alternate remedies a mandatory condition precedent for invoking the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction in fiscal matters?
- Does a demand notice issued under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, require the issuance of a show-cause notice to be legally valid?
- What is the legal distinction between subsections (2) and (3) of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding the requirement of mens rea?
- Can customs authorities unilaterally demand payment for short-levied duty without granting the importer an opportunity to explain their position?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Rab Nawaz and 3 others1996 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court granting bail to respondent No.1, who was accused in a murder and assault case. The core legal question was whether an accused who had escaped from custody, remained an absconder for a significant period, and subsequently sought bail under the statutory delay proviso could claim bail as a matter of right by aggregating intermittent periods of detention. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contemplates a continuous period of detention rather than intermittent periods stitched together, and that an accused's act of abscondence disentitles them to the equitable relief of bail. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, cancelled the bail granted to respondent No.1, and ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants for his arrest.
Questions settled- Whether the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires a continuous period of detention or permits the aggregation of intermittent periods?
- Does the act of abscondence and escaping from custody disentitle an accused person to the grant of bail?
- Can bail be cancelled by a superior court when the accused has misused the concession of bail or engaged in unlawful conduct such as escaping from custody?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Zahoor And State(K.L.R. 1996-Revenue Cases 51) · Board of Revenue · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 72 · Board of Revenue · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
- Khushi Masih vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1787 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the conviction and three-year sentence of the appellant under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Jhang. The prosecution alleged that the appellant sold foreign wine to a fake purchaser using a marked Rs. 1,000 note and that further bottles were recovered from his house. The core legal questions involved whether a charge of selling intoxicants under Article 3(c) can stand without producing the purchaser or currency note, the impact of failing to comply with Article 22 search warrant requirements before searching a residential house, and the validity of a conviction where material evidence was omitted during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that to prove the sale of intoxicants under Article 3(c), the prosecution must produce the purchaser, the currency used, and the purchased intoxicant. It ruled that compliance with Article 22 of the Prohibition Order is a mandatory prerequisite for house searches to protect domestic privacy, preceding the application of Section 103 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination is not a mere formality, and failing to put crucial incriminating circumstances to the accused renders any conviction based on them illegal.
Questions settled- Is the prosecution required to produce the fake purchaser and the currency note used in a trap operation to sustain a conviction for selling intoxicants under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order 1979?
- Is compliance with Article 22 of the Prohibition Order 1979 mandatory before conducting a house search for intoxicants?
- Does the failure to put key pieces of incriminating evidence to the accused during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. render the subsequent conviction illegal?
- Khurshid vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant and a co-convict under Sections 302/34 and 377/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for murder and attempted sodomy. The trial court sentenced both to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the 'last seen' testimony, the recovery of the deceased's body and weapon, blood-stained clothes matching the deceased's blood group, and semen-stained swabs. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficiently strong to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of the appellant's innocence. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were legally sound. The Court laid down the principle that 'last seen' evidence, when corroborated by an unbroken chain of other circumstantial facts, is highly reliable, and that in cases where an incident occurs in an isolated location, a simple denial by the accused is insufficient to rebut strong circumstantial evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the circumstance of the deceased being 'last seen' in the company of the accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without corroboration?
- How should a court evaluate circumstantial evidence when there is no direct eye-witness to the crime?
- Does a simple denial by the accused suffice to nullify strong circumstantial evidence when the crime occurred in an isolated place within the exclusive knowledge of the accused?
- Is the offence of sodomy under Section 377 P.P.C. complete without actual penetration if there is proof of a struggle and attempt?
- Khurshid Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmed vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1049 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad vs Makk Beverages and Mineral Waters (Pvt.) Ltd., Peshawar through Managing Director and 2 others1996 PLC 27 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →