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.
- Ahmad Ashraf vs University of the Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other,1996 MLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-01Read full judgment →
- Ahmad and others vs The State1996 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a conviction. The incident in question occurred during the night at approximately 2:30 a.m., and the eye-witnesses claimed to have observed the event from a distance of 92 feet. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the courts below had correctly followed the established principles governing the appraisal of evidence in criminal matters, particularly concerning night occurrences and witness visibility. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to evaluate the evidentiary assessment of the lower courts. Additionally, the Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the respondents in Criminal Petition No. 63/1993, setting the bail amount at Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.
Questions settled- Whether the established principles governing the appraisal of evidence are correctly followed by lower courts when dealing with a night occurrence witnessed from a significant distance?
- Can leave to appeal be granted by the Supreme Court to review if lower courts properly evaluated eye-witness testimony in a night-time incident?
- Ahmad Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 709 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
- Agriculture Workers Union Balochistan through President_SecretaryGenerals vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Quetta and another1996 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Agriculture Workers Union Balochistan, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 31-8-1994, which set aside the order of the 1st Labour Court, Quetta, and restored the Registrar of Trade Unions' refusal to register the petitioner union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO). The High Court had relied on an earlier unreported Supreme Court decision holding that certain staff of the Livestock and Agriculture Departments were not engaged in the running of an industry. The petitioner's counsel contended that a subsequent larger Bench ruling of the Supreme Court held that certain PWD employees were not engaged in state administration and qualified as workmen entitled to form a trade union under the IRO. The petitioner further argued that the earlier decision failed to consider the statutory definition of 'workman'. Finding that these contentions required further examination in light of the conflicting pronouncements, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether employees of government departments are entitled to register as a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 where their functions do not pertain to the administration of the State?
- Whether the failure to consider the statutory definition of 'workman' in prior precedent warrants reconsideration of the eligibility of departmental workers to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to resolve apparent conflict in Supreme Court precedents regarding the trade union registration rights of non-administrative departmental employees under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Agrics Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore vs F.L.C. and others1996 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
- Agrics Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore vs F.L.C. And Other1996 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
- Agha Jan' and 3 others vs Mst. TM Bibi and 59 others1996 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance of property originally owned by Amir Ali, who died in 1920. Upon his death, his estate was divided among his heirs, including Mst. Bagai, who held a life estate under customary law. Following Mst. Bagai's death in 1975, a dispute arose regarding the subsequent devolution of the property. The petitioners, descendants of a predeceased son of Amir Ali, sought a declaration and possession of their share, arguing that upon the termination of the limited estate, the property should devolve according to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The trial court and the High Court dismissed their suit, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contention that upon the opening of the inheritance following the death of the limited owner, the property reverts to the original owner and must devolve upon the heirs alive at the time of the original owner's death in accordance with the relevant Shariat Application Act.
Questions settled- Does the property of a deceased owner held by a limited owner under customary law revert to the original owner's estate upon the termination of the limited interest?
- Are the descendants of a predeceased son entitled to inherit from the original owner upon the termination of a life estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
- Agha Ghazanfar Ali vs Shaukat Ali and another1996 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for alleged cheating and breach of trust. The petitioner, having received a substantial portion of the sale price for a house, failed to complete the sale or return the funds, leading the respondent to file a criminal complaint under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing a lack of mens rea, but the trial court and High Court declined to intervene. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when the underlying dispute involves a contract and questions of intent. The Supreme Court held that the determination of mens rea and the commission of the offence of cheating are matters to be decided by the trial court upon the evaluation of evidence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the criminal proceedings must be allowed to take their course.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when the dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
- Is the determination of mens rea in a cheating case a matter to be decided by the trial court after evidence, rather than at the stage of acquittal?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is a factual dispute regarding the performance of a contract?
- Afzal Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1366 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
- Afzal Aziz Khilji vs Habib Bank Limited through Circle Executive1996 PLC 721 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad vs Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
- Aftab A. Chaudhry, Chairman, Managing Committee, the Punjab Club, Lahore vs The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another1996 PLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
- Administrator General of Auqaf and another vs The District Judge1996 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Degaon Ganga Reddy G.1996 PTD 923 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs A.L.N. Rao1996 PTD 1042 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-10-13Read full judgment →
- Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant1996 PTD 639 · Gauhati High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
- Adarsh Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner(PTCL 1996 FC. 128) · Gujarat High CourtRead full judgment →
- Adam Khan vs The State1996 MLD 2023 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Adalat Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 637 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
- Abrar Nawab Ahmed vs Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi1996 PLC 136 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- Abijur Rahim And Others vs (M/s.) United Bank Limited1996 P.C.T.L.R 1453 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abid Mahmood vs Government of PAKISTANthrough Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 241 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition as barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner, an employee of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, challenged the eligibility of diploma-holders to hold or be promoted to professional engineering posts under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976. The core legal question was whether a challenge regarding the eligibility of civil servants for promotion or appointment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal or can be entertained by the High Court under Article 199. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of eligibility relate directly to the terms and conditions of service. While section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 bars jurisdiction over questions of fitness or suitability, it does not bar determination of eligibility. Thus, Article 212 bars the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, making the Service Tribunal the exclusive forum for testing civil servants' eligibility.
Questions settled- Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 regarding a civil servant's eligibility for promotion?
- What is the legal distinction between 'eligibility' and 'fitness or suitability' under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the vires of service rules affecting terms and conditions of service?
- Abid Javed alias Mithu vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1161 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and stripes. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the child victim, declared a competent witness, completely exonerated the accused at trial, and critical corroborative evidence was lacking. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a shadow of doubt due to the victim's hostile testimony absolving the appellant, inadmissible hearsay evidence forming the basis of the complainants' arrival at the scene, and inconclusive medical and forensic evidence. The court laid down the principle that when a victim completely exonerates the accused and material gaps exist in the prosecution's corroborative evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal. Furthermore, the court reiterated the imperative requirement for investigating and medical officers to obtain and match the accused's semen sample with vaginal swabs for serological comparison.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr can be sustained when the child victim examined as a court witness completely exonerates the accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of vaginal swabs containing semen when the prosecution fails to obtain and match the semen of the accused for serological comparison?
- Does the rule of benefit of the doubt apply when material prosecution witnesses rely on inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding the occurrence?
- Abid Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1712 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain vs Pervaiz Iqbal and 3 others1996 SCMR 1025 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal seeking to examine the correctness of the High Court's judgment which resulted in the acquittal of Mumtaz Khan and the reduction of the death sentence of Pervaiz Iqbal to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involves evaluating the soundness of the reasons provided by the High Court for acquitting one co-accused and commuting the sentence of another. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, directing that notice be issued to the incarcerated respondent and bailable warrants be issued against the acquitted respondent to secure his appearance.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine the correctness of an acquittal by the High Court?
- Whether leave to appeal is warranted to review the conversion of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Abid Ali vs The State1996 MLD 484 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
- Abdus Sattar and 2 others vs Mitsubishi Corporation (Incorporated1996 PLC 174 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
- Abdus Salam vs Muhammad Firdous alias Babu Mohi and 2 others1996 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, Bench Abbottabad, which granted post-arrest bail to respondents Muhammad Firdous and Mst. Farzana Bibi, and also passed adverse remarks against the petitioner. The petitioner, who had married Mst. Farzana Bibi, discovered she was pregnant and suspected illicit intercourse, leading to a police case. Bail applications were initially rejected by the Ilaqa Magistrate and Sessions Judge but granted by the High Court based on Mst. Farzana Bibi's statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., where she alleged the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her prior to Rukhsati. The Supreme Court, noting that no evidence other than her Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement connected the respondents to the offence, declined leave to appeal against the bail order. However, the Court found the adverse remarks against the petitioner to be prejudicial and unfair, thus ordering their deletion from the High Court's order.
Questions settled- Can a High Court grant bail based on a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement where it contradicts an earlier Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and is the only evidence connecting the accused to the offence?
- Can adverse remarks passed against a party in a bail order be deleted by a higher court if they are found to be prejudicial and unfair?
- Is leave to appeal against a High Court's bail order warranted when the only evidence against the accused is a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and a subsequent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement provides a different account?
- Abdus Sabore vs Abdul Aziz1996 CLC 867 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Pakistan Railway Police through Inspector-General, Pakistan Railway Police, Pakistan Railway Headquarters, Lahore and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1212 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Divisional Engineer Telephone, Misri Shah Exchange, Lahore and another1996 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razzaq Patwari vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub-1996 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razzaq And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Case604 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdur Raziq vs Saranjam1996 MLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rasheed vs Mehran Sugar Mills Ltd., Tando Allah Yar through General Manager1996 PLC 737 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim and anothers vs Mst. Rooh Afza and 6 others1996 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court which remanded a civil suit back to the trial court for a fresh decision. The original suit was filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, claiming her Sharia share in land inherited from her father, Kabirullah, which had been alienated by her brothers to the defendants-vendees without her consent. The trial court and the district court had initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. However, the High Court set aside these judgments, suggesting the vendees were bona fide purchasers without notice. The petitioners contended that the defendants never denied the plaintiff's lineage or her entitlement to a 1/3rd share of the property, making the alienation by the brothers legally ineffective. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised regarding the evidence on record and the status of the vendees required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowing the trial court proceedings to continue but prohibiting a final order until the appeal is decided.
Questions settled- Can a property alienation by brothers be held valid if it infringes upon the Sharia share of their sisters?
- Does a finding of a 'bona fide purchaser without notice' require a re-evaluation of evidence regarding the plaintiff's established lineage and share?
- Is a trial court permitted to proceed with a case while an appeal against a remand order is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Abdullah vs Haider Khan and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that dismissed his review petition regarding a pre-emption suit. The dispute originated in the Court of the Extra-Assistant Commissioner, Timargera, under the PATA Regulation No. II of 1975, where the petitioner's suit was decreed by a Jirga. Following unsuccessful appeals and revisions, the respondent challenged the decree in the High Court, which set aside the decree citing the Supreme Court's decision in Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360), holding that no pre-emption decree could be passed after 31-7-1986 without compliance with the requirements of 'Talabs'. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by applying this principle despite the non-extension of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) to the area, and further argued that the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction by setting aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the performance of 'Talabs'. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the issues raised regarding the applicability of pre-emption laws and the scope of constitutional jurisdiction in reviewing concurrent findings of fact were of public importance.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the performance of 'Talabs'?
- Does the principle laid down in Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360) regarding the necessity of 'Talabs' apply to areas where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) has not been extended?
- Is a pre-emption decree passed after 31-7-1986 legally sustainable if the requirements of 'Talabs' were not complied with?
- Abdullah Khan vs Abdul Qayyum and another1996 SCMR 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to Abdul Qayyum respondent, who was implicated under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly abetting a murder. The core legal question was whether bail was properly granted to a co-accused charged with abetment where his presence at the spot was not alleged, divergent investigation reports existed, and statements supporting the allegation of abetment were recorded belatedly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, noting that bail cannot be withheld solely on the basis of belated statements supporting abetment. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that bail will not be refused merely due to belated statements alleging abetment when the accused was found innocent in initial investigations and was not present at the scene of the crime.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be withheld simply on the basis of statements supporting an allegation of abetment made at a very belated stage?
- Does the absence of the accused from the spot and conflicting police investigation reports constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- When can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail?
- Abdullah Jan vs Tajammul Hussain Chishti and others1996 PLC 94 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul, Aziz vs The State1996 SCMR 1693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail to the appellant, Abdul Aziz, who was booked under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of F.I.R. No. 14 dated 9-5-1994. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused attributed with a similar role of causing simple injuries had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and held that since the appellant did not cause any injury to the deceased and his role regarding the prosecution witness was identical to that of the co-accused who was already enlarged on bail, the appellant was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused persons share similar imputations resulting in simple injuries and one has been admitted to bail, the principle of consistency dictates that bail should also be extended to the remaining co-accused.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Does a role attributed with causing simple injuries to a witness warrant the withholding of post-arrest bail when the co-accused similarly situated is admitted to bail?
- Abdul Waheed and others vs Banking Tribunal1996 CLC 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Vakil Malik vs Ashfaq Ahmad QureshiK.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral CF Police, Dera Ghazi Khan1996 P Cr. L J 2034 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Allah Diya1996 CLC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and anothers vs Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) Special Court No.IV, Lahore and anothers1996 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And Another vs Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists1996 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And Another vs Special Judge (Suppression Of TerroristK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and 3 others vs Ahmad Shah and 7 others1996 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And 3 Others vs Ahmad Shah And 7 Other1996 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad vs Secretary,Railways/Chairman, Railway Board,1996 PLC (C.S.) 963 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Fateh Sher and 8 others1996 SCMR 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Lahore High Court in a double murder and attempted murder case under Sections 302/149, 307, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted and sentenced eight respondents based on ocular testimony from related witnesses, medical evidence, and alleged weapon recoveries. The High Court acquitted all respondents, holding that the prosecution failed to prove motive, weapon recoveries without empty shells lacked evidentiary value, and the ocular evidence was untrustworthy. Crucially, eye-witnesses dishonestly improved their statements by substituting accused persons and weapons to align with medical evidence showing a pellet injury rather than a bullet wound. The Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal, holding that where eye-witnesses make a dishonest departure from previous statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rule of prudence mandates independent corroboration regarding each accused, which was absent. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence justify the rejection of eye-witness testimony?
- Whether dishonest improvements made by eye-witnesses to align their statements with medical evidence render them unreliable without independent corroboration?
- Is the recovery of a weapon of offense admissible or consequential if no empty cartridge shells were recovered from the spot?
- Can a judgment of acquittal be interfered with if the view taken by the High Court is supportable from the evidence on record and not perverse?
- Abdul Razzaque Baloch vs Messrs Oil & Gas Development Corporation1996 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns an accused facing trial under the Customs Act, 1969, for alleged currency smuggling. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the applicant's prior status as an absconder and the risk of him absconding, drawing parallels to a co-accused who had absconded after being granted bail. The core legal question was whether bail should be denied solely on the grounds of alleged abscondence and the apprehension of future flight, particularly when the applicant had not been declared a proclaimed offender. The Court held that bail should be granted, ruling that the principle of refusing bail to an absconder is not applied strictly in every case, especially where the accused lacked knowledge of pending proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that an accused cannot be denied bail based on a presumption of future abscondence derived from the conduct of a co-accused. The judgment establishes that where a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, bail is a right, and the uncorroborated statement of an absconding co-accused is insufficient to justify continued incarceration.
Questions settled- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of abscondence if the accused was not declared a proclaimed offender?
- Is the uncorroborated statement of an absconding co-accused sufficient to deny bail to another accused?
- Does the risk of future abscondence based on the conduct of a co-accused constitute valid grounds for refusing bail?
- Is bail a right of the accused when the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Abdul Rauf vs Chief Administrative Officer, General Staff Branch, GHQ, Rawalpindi and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1092 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasool vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Bashiran and another1996 SCMR 808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant based on co-ownership and collateral relationship. The respondents resisted the suit, claiming the appellant was estopped from pre-empting because he was present at and participated in the sale transaction. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit, finding no estoppel or waiver. However, the High Court in second appeal reversed these findings, inferring waiver from the appellant's alleged presence and the filing of the suit near the end of the limitation period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the concurrent decrees. The Court held that the mere presence of a pre-emptor at the time of a sale transaction does not constitute estoppel or waiver. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal merely because an alternative view of the evidence is possible.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of a pre-emptor at the time a sale bargain is struck constitute estoppel or waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed as a device or on grounds of delay solely because it was filed near the end of the statutory limitation period?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and others1996 SCMR 1163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed appeals filed by the respondent challenging the petitioner's seniority determination. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could lawfully count their prior ad hoc service period with the Engineering University towards their seniority in the department, specifically through a relaxation of the relevant rules. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no case on the merits. The Court determined that allowing an employee to count ad hoc service towards seniority in the department through a relaxation of rules is neither legal nor proper. Consequently, the Court found that no legal question of general importance arose from the impugned judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal. The decision reinforces the principle that seniority benefits cannot be derived from ad hoc service periods via rule relaxation, as established in previous jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Can an employee count a period of ad hoc service with a university towards their seniority in a government department?
- Is the relaxation of rules to allow the counting of ad hoc service for seniority purposes legally permissible?
- Abdul Rashid Khan and 1565 others vs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory1996 PLC 740 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 724 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad AzeemK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 499 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayum vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1427 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayum and 15 others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another1996 SCMR 1820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the determination of compensation for land acquired by the District Magistrate, Sialkot, in 1972 under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971. The core legal questions concerned the appropriate market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition, the entitlement to a 25% compulsory acquisition premium versus 15%, and whether the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation due to the passage of time and inflation. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly identified the relevant date for valuation, the compensation rate required enhancement to Rs. 1,500 per Marla, considering the upward trend in land prices. However, the Court rejected the claim for a 25% premium, noting the appellants failed to prove the Market Committee qualified as a 'company' under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court upheld the existing 15% premium and 8% interest rate, directing the respondents to pay the difference in compensation immediately. The judgment reaffirms that compensation must reflect the market value at the time of acquisition while adhering to specific statutory limitations regarding compulsory acquisition charges.
Questions settled- Is a Market Committee considered a 'company' for the purpose of claiming a 25% compulsory acquisition premium under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can the Supreme Court enhance the rate of compensation for acquired land based on the upward trend in market prices?
- Does the failure to prove the status of an acquiring body as a 'company' preclude the award of a 25% compulsory acquisition premium?
- Abdul Qadir and 4 others vs Assistant Commissionercumcollector, Quetta and anothers1996 MLD 1608 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir And 4 Others vs Assistant Commissionercumcollector, Quetta And Another1996 MLD 1608 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir and 3 others vs Haji Ghulam Qadir and 4 others1996 CLC 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application is directed against an appellate court judgment and decree that reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and alternative specific performance of an agreement regarding agricultural lands. The core legal questions involve the validity and legal efficacy of transferring immovable property via a statement recorded before a Revenue Officer, whether such a statement constitutes an enforceable contract of sale, and the correctness of the appellate court's appreciation of evidence regarding possession and mutation of rights. The Sindh High Court held that recording a statement before a Mukhtiarkar for the transfer of immovable property without compliance with statutory provisions and registration requirements is legally untenable, and that entries in the record of rights do not confer title. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, holding that the alleged transaction was not proved and was tainted with material contradictions, thereby restoring the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. The key principles laid down include that revenue officer statements cannot bypass statutory transfer and registration laws for immovable property, and that appellate courts should not overturn trial court findings based on misappreciated evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of immovable property on the basis of a statement before a Revenue Officer is warranted by law under the Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Do entries in the record of rights by themselves confer any right, title, and interest in favour of a party?
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court based on misappreciated evidence and surmises?
- Does a statement recorded before a Mukhtiarkar regarding agricultural land dispense with the requirements of registered deeds under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Registration Act 1908?
- Abdul Qaddus vs Abdur Rashid and anothers1996 MLD 2021 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qaddus vs Abdur Rashid And Another1996 MLD 2021 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matin vs Matiurrehman and others1996 MLD 2045 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matin vs Matiurrehman And Other1996 MLD 2045 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs SadarudoinK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 59 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 309 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of 13 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concerned the necessity of complying with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the recovery of narcotics in a populated area, the evidentiary value of police-only witnesses, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's proof regarding the nature of the recovered substance. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that when a recovery occurs in a populated area, the failure to associate private witnesses as Mashirs, without providing specific details of those who refused to participate, creates a significant evidentiary gap. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case weakened by the unexplained delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner and the failure to analyze the entire quantity of the alleged contraband. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, reinforcing the principle that police evidence must be scrutinized with extreme caution when procedural safeguards are ignored.
Questions settled- Is compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for recoveries of narcotics made in populated areas?
- Can the evidence of police officials alone be sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, in the absence of private witnesses?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending a narcotic sample to the Chemical Examiner affect the reliability of the prosecution's case?
- Abdul Majid alias Jaidu and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the convictions of three petitioners for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, who were sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively, challenged the reliance placed on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses related to the deceased. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, given the background of enmity, required corroboration and whether the sentences and compensation amounts were appropriate. The Supreme Court held that the extensive medical evidence, detailing numerous incised wounds, provided strong corroboration for the ocular account, thereby justifying the convictions. The Court further affirmed the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentences of two petitioners to life imprisonment, noting their participation under the influence of their elder brother, while maintaining the death sentence for the primary assailant. The Court also upheld the trial court's discretionary determination of compensation. The key principle laid down is that medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony sufficiently establishes guilt, even when witnesses are related to the deceased.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony from witnesses related to the deceased be relied upon without corroboration in a murder case?
- Does medical evidence showing multiple injuries provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony?
- Is the determination of compensation for legal heirs a matter of judicial discretion for the trial court?
- Can the appellate court maintain different sentences for co-accused convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on their roles and influence?
- Abdul Majeed vs Wazir Begum and 5 others1996 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against an order passed by the Rent Controller under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is competent to direct a tenant to deposit arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years prior to the institution of the ejectment petition. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, holding that the Rent Controller was not competent to direct the deposit of arrears of rent for a period of more than three years, in accordance with previously established precedent. The Court laid down the principle that arrears of rent ordered to be deposited in ejectment proceedings cannot exceed the three-year period preceding the filing of the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller can direct a tenant to deposit arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years prior to the institution of the ejectment petition?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court when a clear error of law is established?
- Abdul Majeed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 629 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Mugheri vs The State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh1996 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Yousafzai vs Tilla Muhammad and anothers1996 MLD 408 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Yousafzai vs Tilla Muhammad And Another1996 MLD 408 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Muhammad Yousuf and 2 others1996 PLD Karachi 365 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from the dismissal of the applicant's suit in default and subsequent rejections by the trial and appellate courts of his application under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. The restoration application, supported by unrefuted affidavits of the applicant and his advocate explaining that absence resulted from a bona fide mistake and stating that knowledge of dismissal was acquired later, was rejected below solely because no separate condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was filed and for alleged non-compliance with Order XLIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside both subordinate court orders and restoring the suit. The High Court held that unrebutted averments in an advocate's affidavit stand admitted and establish sufficient cause. Because the restoration application was filed within thirty days of the applicant's knowledge, a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was unnecessary. Furthermore, procedural rules cannot defeat substantive justice on technicalities.
Questions settled- Whether an unrebutted affidavit filed by an advocate in support of a restoration application constitutes an admission of the facts stated therein?
- Whether a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is required when an application under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. is filed within thirty days of acquiring knowledge of the dismissal order?
- Can a court dismiss an application for restoration of a suit on technical procedural grounds where sufficient cause is shown on the uncontroverted record?
- Abdul Khaliq vs The State1996 SCMR 1553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan which dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 302/34, P.P.C., for the murder of Abdul Wahab. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and the material discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that late recording of Section 161, Cr.P.C., statements without plausible explanation reduces their evidentiary value to nil, and that serious conflicts between ocular testimony showing the victim being chased from behind and medical evidence showing entry wounds from the front cannot be ignored. The key principle laid down is that contradictory ocular evidence that is irreconcilable with medical findings, coupled with unexplained delays in recording witness statements, is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., reduce their evidentiary value to nil?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence?
- Is an accused bound by admissions made by defense counsel during cross-examination?
- When may concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in an appeal?
- Abdul Khaliq vs Niaz Khan and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner/complainant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the grounds of vicarious liability and alleged misreading of the record, particularly in the context of a cross-version case. The Lahore High Court held that the existence of a cross-version brings the matter into the realm of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it is difficult to determine the aggressor at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court held that a discretionary bail order passed by a trial court will not be interfered with unless it is proved to be perverse, capricious, or that the accused has misused the concession of bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of a cross-version makes a criminal case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail granted by a trial court be cancelled without establishing that the order was perverse or that the accused misused the concession of bail?
- Does general and unspecific injury attribution warrant the cancellation of bail on the basis of vicarious liability?
- Abdul Karim vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat, Quetta and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 564 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Afzal and others1996 P Cr. L J 253 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim KHAN's And Other vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 69) · Board of Revenue · 1994-01-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and 3 others vs The STATEs1996 MLD 183 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim And 3 Others vs The State1996 MLD 183 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim alias Raja and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 503 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Larkana, convicting the appellants under sections 365-A and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death along with forfeiture of property and payment of compensation to the abductees. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants, along with others, abducted two persons from a rice mill at gunpoint and detained them until ransom was paid. The core legal questions involved the reliability of identification evidence, the unexplained delay of six months in arresting the named or identifiable accused, and the effect of non-compliance with statutory provisions governing the submission of police reports under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious doubts, manipulated evidence, and a dubious identification parade. The Court ruled that prolonged unexplained delay in arresting known accused and failing to submit prompt reports under section 173 vitiate the trial, and set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitting the appellants of the charges.
Questions settled- Whether an identification parade holds evidentiary value when the names of the accused were already known to the complainant shortly after the incident but omitted from the initial police report?
- Does a prolonged and unexplained delay of six months in arresting the accused by the investigating agency render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Whether non-compliance with the provisions regarding the submission of police reports under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can vitiate a trial?
- Can a conviction for abduction and ransom be sustained solely on the basis of a dubious identification test and oral testimony unsupported by reliable corroborative evidence?
- Abdul Karim Alias Raja And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 294 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Kabir and 146 others vs Asian Food Industries Ltd, Karachi1996 PLC 200 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Janan vs University of Peshawar through ViceChancellor and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by an M.B.,B.S. student challenging disciplinary decisions by the University of Peshawar. The Unfair Means Committee (U.F.M. Committee) and the Appellate Committee of the University had penalized the appellant for allegedly using unfair means during an examination. The core legal questions pertained to whether an unintelligible disciplinary penalty order violates statutory rules, and whether the inclusion of an original adjudicator as a member of the Appellate Committee vitiates the appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decisions, holding that disciplinary orders affecting a student's career must be intelligible and demonstrate application of mind. Furthermore, the Court held that the Appellate Committee was defectively constituted and its proceedings were vitiated because the Controller of Examinations, who was a member of the original U.F.M. Committee, sat on the appellate tribunal, and unauthorized members participated prior to their official appointment.
Questions settled- Does the inclusion of an original adjudicator as a member of an appellate tribunal vitiate the appellate decision?
- Are disciplinary orders issued by university authorities against students required to be intelligible and demonstrate an application of mind?
- Can a disciplinary order imposing penalties on a candidate be upheld if it contradicts the statutory penalty rules prescribed for the alleged misconduct?
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1996 PLD Quetta 40 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Qureshi vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and 31996 PLC 642 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 5 others1996 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the Sindh Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal regarding seniority in Grade-18. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as time-barred and barred by section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court addressed whether the appeal was time-barred, whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and whether uncommunicated adverse ACR remarks could justify supersession. The Court held that the appeal was within time, as the respondents failed to prove the communication of the impugned order. It further ruled that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction because the dispute involved seniority determination under Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, rather than a challenge to 'fitness for promotion.' The Court established that uncommunicated adverse ACR remarks are ineffective and cannot form the basis for adverse administrative orders. Additionally, under Rule 13, a civil servant not considered for promotion for reasons other than unfitness is entitled to seniority parity with their batch mates if the competent authority failed to pass a specific order regarding inter se seniority. The appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Can an appeal before the Service Tribunal be considered time-barred if the department fails to prove the communication of the impugned order?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine seniority disputes under Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975?
- Can uncommunicated adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) be used as a valid basis for superseding a civil servant's promotion?
- Under Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, is a civil servant entitled to seniority parity with their batch mates if they were not considered for promotion for reasons other than unfitness?
- Abdul Hayee and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Sindh High Court, which cancelled the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in granting bail on the ground of alleged conflict between ocular and medical evidence, and whether the High Court rightly interfered with that discretion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners were specifically named in the F.I.R. with clear roles in a capital crime, and at the bail stage, evidence should not be assessed in depth to avoid prejudicing the merits. Affirming the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had acted illegally in granting bail in a heinous crime without proper grounds, and thus dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the cancellation of bail.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted in a capital case on the ground of alleged conflict between ocular and medical evidence at the preliminary stage?
- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with a bail-granting order passed by the trial court in violation of settled principles?
- Is a case involving prompt naming of accused with specific firearm roles in the F.I.R. considered a case of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- What is the scope of evaluation of evidence by criminal courts at the bail stage in heinous offenses?
- Abdul Haque vs The State and another1996 SCMR 1566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, convicted of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged his conviction and the subsequent enhancement of his life imprisonment sentence to death by the High Court. The appellant admitted to the killing but argued it occurred under grave and sudden provocation after the deceased threatened to sexually assault his wife and female relatives. The High Court, relying on the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1990, held that because the new section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 lacked the previous exceptions, the defense of grave and sudden provocation was no longer available. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court identified a fundamental legal question regarding whether the 1990 Ordinance intended to abolish the long-standing principle of diminished liability for crimes committed under grave and sudden provocation. Given the significant impact on pending cases and the importance of the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the Court determined that the matter required consideration by a larger bench of seven judges to resolve whether the preferential treatment for such offenders remains valid under the current statutory framework.
Questions settled- Does the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1990 abolish the defense of grave and sudden provocation for murder charges?
- Is the plea of diminished liability for crimes committed under grave and sudden provocation still available under the current Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused who kills under grave and sudden provocation be treated differently in sentencing than a cold-blooded murderer?
- Abdul Haq vs The State1996 MLD 907 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq alias Qavi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khokhar vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Communication & Works Department, Lahore(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Gases 144) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →