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.
- Abdul Hanan and 10 others vs Ahmad and others1996 PLD Supreme Court 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the appellate court's decree which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit and declared them owners in possession of the property left by Sher Baz. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were not entitled to any share under Shariah as their father had predeceased Sher Baz. The trial court had dismissed the suit applying Customary Law, but the appellate and high court held that under the retrospective amendments of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, succession must be determined in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court erred in ignoring settled precedents holding that the Shariat Application Act did not intend to re-open closed successions where absolute vested estates had been acquired under custom, and whether such claims remain subject to the law of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether succession to the estate of a Muslim who died before the enactment of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935 is to be governed by Shariah or Customary Law in light of subsequent retrospective amendments?
- Does the retrospective operation of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935 permit the re-opening of closed inheritances where heirs had taken an absolute vested estate under custom?
- Are claims by Muslim law heirs preferred after the enactment of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935 subject to the law of limitation?
- Abdul Hamid, Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 93) · Board of Revenue · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 683 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs The Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Local1996 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the order of the Secretary, Local Government, Balochistan, which awarded an Octroi contract to a private party without conducting a public auction. The core legal question was whether the government possessed the authority to bypass mandatory auction procedures and award contracts directly by invoking "public interest" or by relaxing rules. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect. It determined that statutory functionaries exercising administrative powers must strictly conform to the methods prescribed by law. The Court rejected the "public interest" justification, reasoning that competitive bidding is the only mechanism that truly serves the public interest by maximizing municipal revenue. It further clarified that while the government has the power to relax rules, such power does not authorize the arbitrary bypassing of mandatory auction requirements for contract awards. Consequently, the Court set aside the award and directed the authorities to proceed with a fresh public auction in accordance with the relevant rules.
Questions settled- Can the government award an Octroi contract directly to a party without holding a public auction?
- Does the concept of 'public interest' justify bypassing mandatory statutory auction procedures for government contracts?
- Is a statutory functionary required to strictly adhere to the methods prescribed by law when exercising administrative powers?
- Does the power to relax rules under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, permit the government to bypass the requirement of public auction?
- Abdul Hameed vs The Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, Zila1996 CLC 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and others vs Muhammad Mohyuddin Siddique and others1996 CLC 227 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition concerns the nature of a gift of agricultural land made by the predecessor-in-interest to his wife. The core legal question was whether the transaction constituted a gift of the corpus of the property or merely a transfer of usufruct for life, and whether the condition of life interest was valid under Muslim Law. The Court held that the donor had transferred the corpus of the property, not merely the usufruct. Consequently, the condition attempting to limit the gift to a life interest was void under the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. The Court affirmed that under Muslim Law, a gift (Hiba) of the corpus of property is absolute. If a donor attempts to attach a condition limiting the gift to a life interest, the condition is void, but the gift itself remains valid and absolute. The distinction between Hiba (gift of corpus) and Ariat (transfer of usufruct) is critical, and courts must determine the donor's intention from the language used in the transaction. The revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a condition of life interest attached to a gift of the corpus of property valid under Hanafi Law?
- What is the legal distinction between Hiba and Ariat under Muslim Law?
- Does a gift of the corpus of property remain valid if the condition attached to it is found to be void?
- Abdul Hameed alias Haqoa vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 817 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Additional Chief Secretary (Development), And Other(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 19) · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Additional Chief Secretary (Development) and Chairman, B-WASA, Quetta and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Abrar Hussain1996 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three petitions for leave to appeal arise from a common judgment of the High Court concerning rent disputes over properties transferred via Permanent Transfer Order in 1959. The core legal questions involve the sufficiency of a Permanent Transfer Order to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the scope of inquiry by a Rent Controller when a tenant disputes title, and whether a High Court in rent proceedings can direct a landlord to obtain a Permanent Transfer Deed and demarcate the property. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether a P.T.O. suffices for claiming rent, whether the High Court's directions exceeded the scope of rent proceedings, and the legal effect of a tenant claiming ownership without proper pleadings. The Court held that arguable points of law were raised regarding the interpretation of landlord-tenant definitions and the proper scope of rent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a Permanent Transfer Order is sufficient to entitle a landlord to claim rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can the High Court direct a landlord in rent proceedings to obtain a Permanent Transfer Deed and have the property demarcated?
- What is the legal effect when a tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant and claims title to the property?
- Abdul Ghani Chaudhry vs Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1996 SCMR 1723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Ghani Chaudhary against the Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others, reported as 1996 SCMR 1723. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the petitioner could lawfully be denied his promotion and seniority on the grounds stated in the impugned order, particularly given the fact that the adverse remarks recorded against him had already been expunged. Granting leave to appeal, the Court decided that the matter required closer examination regarding the legality of denying promotion and seniority after the expungement of adverse remarks. The key principle laid down is that adverse remarks which have been expunged cannot serve as a valid legal basis for denying an eligible civil servant his due promotion and consequential seniority.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be denied promotion and seniority on the basis of adverse remarks that have already been expunged?
- Does the expungement of adverse remarks entitle a government employee to reconsideration for promotion and seniority?
- Abdul Ghani and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1996 CLC 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition challenging the approval of a building plan by official respondents for the reconstruction of a petrol pump on a plot situated within a cantonment area. The core legal questions relate to whether contractual lease disputes between private parties can be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether building control authorities are legally required to obtain the owner's consent or restrict building plan applications exclusively to the owner or their attorney under applicable laws. The Sindh High Court held that disputes regarding the rights and obligations of private parties under a lease cannot be resolved in a constitutional petition and must be determined through appropriate evidentiary proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that building control within cantonment areas is governed by federal legislation to the exclusion of provincial regulations, and no provision of law prohibits approving a construction plan without the owner's consent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can contractual disputes regarding the rights and obligations of private parties under a lease be determined in a constitutional petition?
- Does a provincial building control regulation prevail over the Cantonments Act 1924 for property situated within a cantonment area?
- Is the consent of the plot owner mandatory for the approval of a reconstruction plan submitted by a sub-lessee under the Cantonments Act 1924?
- Does the statutory framework restrict the submission of building plan applications exclusively to the owner or their attorney?
- Abdul Ghani and others vs Ahmad Himani and 5 otherss1996 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses a civil miscellaneous application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by defendants Nos. 4 and 5 (tenants) in a property ownership dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. The applicants sought to join the Board of Revenue and the Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) as defendants to determine whether the disputed property was an evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the addition of these government departments was necessary or proper for the effective adjudication of the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. The Court held that the applicants, being merely tenants whose status as tenants would remain unaffected regardless of whether the plaintiffs or defendant No. 1 proved ownership, failed to make out a case for joinder. Furthermore, neither proposed department was a necessary or proper party since the plea was not raised in the written statement or issues, and joinder would alter the nature of the suit and complicate proceedings. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether third-party tenants can seek the joinder of government departments under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. to contest the ownership of a disputed property?
- What constitutes a necessary or proper party for the purposes of joinder under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party introduce a completely new factual stand through an interlocutory application without amending the pleadings or framing issues?
- Whether an application for addition of parties should be allowed if it changes the nature of the suit and causes embarrassment or complication?
- Abdul Ghafoor, Faisalabad vs (Dy.) Cit Cos. Circle Faisalabad1996 P.C.T.L.R. 409 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1996 P Cr. L J 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose from a criminal case registered against five applicants under Crime No. 86/95 at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki, for allegedly engaging in a half-hour armed shootout with a police patrol party before surrendering. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground that the prosecution's narrative was highly improbable and warranted further inquiry. The High Court of Sindh observed that despite an alleged half-hour exchange of fire involving deadly weapons like Kalashnikovs, not a single person on either side was injured, nor was the police vehicle hit. Additionally, the court found it highly improbable that five armed men with loaded weapons would easily surrender to six policemen without attempting to escape. Consequently, the High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry and granted bail to the applicants.
Questions settled- Whether a case of further inquiry is made out for granting bail when a prolonged armed police encounter results in absolutely no injuries or damage to property?
- Can bail be granted if the prosecution's narrative regarding the surrender of heavily armed accused persons is highly improbable on the face of the record?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum and others1996 MLD 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum And Other1996 MLD 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar and anothers vs Fauzia Durrani1996 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar and another vs Judge, Special Court No.1 (Pb.) for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and another1996 P Cr. L J 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar And Another vs Fauzia Durrani1996 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Hassan1996 CLC 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Deceased Rep By Lhrs. vs Muhammad Hassan(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 138) · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aleem and 7 others vs Habibullah1996 CLC 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Akbar alias Pakh vs The State1996 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by the convict, Abdul Akbar, and the complainant, Mst. Nawab Jana, challenging a Peshawar High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction and sentence for the murder of Mir Ajab Khan. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence, the impact of alleged contradictions between medical and eyewitness testimony, and the evidentiary value of the petitioner’s abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appraised the evidence, finding the eyewitness testimony credible and corroborated by the petitioner's prolonged abscondence. The Court rejected the defense's arguments regarding medical contradictions, noting that the defense failed to cross-examine the medical officer on these points. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the burden of proving an alibi, such as the petitioner's claim of being in Iran, rests on the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the convict's appeal against conviction and the complainant's petition for sentence enhancement, ruling that the original sentence met the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cross-examine a medical officer on alleged contradictions between medical and ocular evidence weaken the prosecution's case?
- Is the abscondence of an accused person a relevant factor for corroborating ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- Does the burden of proving an alibi lie upon the accused when the prosecution has established a prima facie case?
- Can an appellate court enhance a sentence in a criminal case based on a revision petition filed by the complainant?
- Abbasia Cooperative Bank Now Punjab, Provincial Cooperative Bank1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment restoring a trial court decree that declared an auction of property illegal. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of an auction conducted by cooperative authorities, given the ouster clauses in the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loan) Ordinance 1966 and Martial Law Order No. 241. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court retains jurisdiction to examine the validity of actions taken by executive authorities or special tribunals where such actions are mala fide, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of the governing statute and principles of natural justice. The Court found that the auction was conducted in violation of the procedural requirements of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, and that Martial Law Order No. 241 was inapplicable due to the loan amount being below the statutory threshold. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing that statutory ouster clauses must be construed strictly and do not shield illegal actions from judicial review.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to challenge an auction conducted by cooperative authorities despite an ouster clause in the governing Ordinance?
- What are the conditions under which a Civil Court can review the actions of a special tribunal or executive authority despite a statutory bar on jurisdiction?
- Is a loan obtained by a family member automatically recoverable from another person without a finding of a benami transaction?
- Does the procedure for recovery of loans under the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loan) Ordinance 1966 require compliance with the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Abbas Ali vs Shahbaz Hussain And StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 250 · Other · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abason Industries Public Ltd. vs Suprintendent Of Customs, Central Excise(PTCL 1996 CL. 101) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition against notices issued by the Customs authorities for the recovery of unpaid import duties and charges. The petitioner, a manufacturer of raw materials, defaulted on warehousing arrears despite being granted installments. The core legal question concerns whether the Customs authorities have the lawful authority under Section 202 of the Customs Act to stop the clearance of finished goods or take recovery steps for unpaid dues when such goods are no longer under direct customs control. The Supreme Court held that under Section 202(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, the appropriate officer is empowered to recover arrears through attachment and sale of movable or immovable property, possessing powers akin to a civil court executing a decree. Furthermore, an otherwise lawful action by an authority is not vitiated merely because the specific provision of law was omitted from the notice. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether Customs Authorities can stop the clearance of goods or take coercive recovery steps under Section 202 of the Customs Act for unpaid duties?
- Does the failure to cite a specific statutory provision in a recovery notice invalidate an otherwise lawful action taken by the Customs Authorities?
- What powers does an appropriate officer possess for the recovery of duties and levies under Section 202 of the Customs Act?
- Abason Industries Public Limited vs Superintendent of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Gadoon Amazai and 3 others1996 SCMR 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a manufacturer, failed to clear arrears of import duties and taxes on raw materials stored in a private bonded warehouse. Despite being granted an installment plan, the petitioner defaulted, leading the Customs authorities to issue notices threatening action to recover the outstanding dues. The petitioner challenged these notices in the Peshawar High Court, arguing that authorities lacked the power to stop the clearance of finished goods. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, empowered the authorities to recover dues. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed this position, ruling that Section 202(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, 1969, provides broad powers for the recovery of government dues, including the attachment and sale of movable or immovable property, akin to the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court further held that a notice is not invalidated merely by the failure to explicitly cite the specific statutory provision, provided the action itself is legally authorized.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cite a specific statutory provision in a notice invalidate the action if the action is otherwise authorized by law?
- Do Customs authorities have the power to recover outstanding duties by attaching and selling a defaulter's movable or immovable property?
- Are the powers of recovery granted to Customs officers under Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, equivalent to the powers of a Civil Court for executing a decree?
- A.P.P. Employees' Union of Pakistan, Islamabad through President, Zafar1996 PLC 153 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
- A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank vs National Hydro Electric Power Corporation1996 P.C.T.L.R. 44 · Company Law Board · 1994-03-15Read full judgment →
- A. Raman vs Fourth Income-Tax Officer and another1996 PTD 696 · Madras High Court · 1994-04-22Read full judgment →
- A. Raman vs Fourth Income Tax Officer And Another(PTCL 1996 FC. 44) · Madras High Court · 1994-04-22Read full judgment →
- A. Majid Sama vs The Asbestos Cement Industries, Ltd. And Another1996 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff initiated a civil suit for damages amounting to Rs. 51,000 against the defendants, alleging defamation arising from a letter sent by the defendants to the plaintiff, which was also allegedly copied to a government Minister. The defendants denied the allegations, asserting the communication was not defamatory and was privileged. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff passed away, raising the legal question of whether the cause of action for defamation survived to his legal representatives. The Court examined the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, noting its application in Pakistani law based on justice, equity, and good conscience. While the plaintiff's counsel argued that the right to reputation is equivalent to property rights under Islamic law and should therefore survive, the Court distinguished the cited precedents as inapplicable to the present facts. The Court held that a claim for damages for personal torts, such as defamation, does not survive the death of the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court ruled that the suit abated upon the plaintiff's death and dismissed the matter accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a cause of action for defamation survive the death of the plaintiff?
- Is the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona applicable in the law of Pakistan?
- Does the right to reputation survive the death of the owner in the same manner as property rights?
- 1. Jaswa nt Trading Company.2. Anil Trading Company. vs Commissioner Of(PTCL 1996 FC. 50) · Rajasthan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Syed) Abbas Haider vs Azad Kashmir University Through Its ViceK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 359 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
- (SMT.) NIT a Taneja vs Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 273 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- (Retd.) Major Mazhar Mahmood Khan . vs Khushal Khan JadoonK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 252 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- (Prof.) Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Pakistan Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 331 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.)Tokyo Auto & Agricultural Industriesltd., Lahore . vs 1To1996 P.C.T.L.R. 755 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- (M/s.)Farooq Interprises vs The Commissioner of Income Tax and1996 P.C.T.L.R. 864 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Tharparker Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Sheikh Spining Mills Ltd. And Other vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
- Abaw Hussain vs Mst. Qamarun Nisa1996 MLD 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Sante International (Pvt) Limited And Another vs The1996 P.C.T.L.R. 482 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) S.G. Rauf & Co. And 2 Others vs United Bank Ltd. And 2 Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 585 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Reema Traders, Multan vs Ito Circle-02, Multan1996 P.C.T.L.R. 426 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Oriental Corporation, Lahore 1to Companies, Circle-07, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 766 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) N.S. Enterprises And Others vs Government of Pakistan Through1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1266 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Metco Shipbreakers vs Pakistan Through The Secretary Ministry OfK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 26 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Mahboob Nusrat Corporation, Faisalabad vs Ito, Circle-III,1996 P.C.T.L.R. 406 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. Lahore vs Iac of Income Tax Range-v,1996 P.C.T.L.R. 730 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-08-03Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Commercial Engg. Works, Lahore vs The I.T.O. Circle 14, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 705 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Chanab Creaseent Products vs Banking Tribunal1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-21Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Arrow Trading Company vs Housing Corporation, 21-K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 452 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Ahmad Carpets, Lahore vs The 1to, Cir-14, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 724 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Universal Medical and General Store vs (M/s) Kazi and Sons, AndK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 236 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s) Milal Textile Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd Faisalabad ' Ito Coys Circle,1996 P.C.T.L.R, 421 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Khatoon Soap Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Gujranwala vs I. T.O. Circle-1996 P.C.T.L.R. 402 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
- (M/s) ICI Pakistan Limited vs Collector of Central Excise and Sales1996 P.C.T.L.R. 249 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- (M/s) Fine Food Industries (Private) Limited vs The Agricultural1996 P.C.T.L.R. 109 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Al-Hamza Ship Breaking Comany And Others vs Government of1996 P.C.T.L.R. 314 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s ) Muhammad Jamil Wto Circle-I, Faisalabad vs Wto Circle-II,1996 P.C.T.L.R. 415 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zohra Bai And Another vs Messrs Standard Industries Ltd.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 478 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zeenat Begum And Another vs The Chairman, Federal LandK.L.R. 4996 Revenue Cases 157 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Syedah Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 229 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Surrayia Bano vs (Mst.) Nazia Bano Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 17) · Board of Revenue · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sab1ra vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 70 · Board of Revenue · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Rubia Jilani vs Raja Zahoor AkhtarK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 421 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nazir Begum vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Khursh1d Bibi, Etc vs Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), EtcK.L.R. 19% Revenue Cases 112 · Board of Revenue · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Karamat Bibi vs Board of Revenue, Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-04Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Hamida Bibi Etc vs Abdul Majid Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 149) · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Begum vs Rashid Ahmad(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 76) · Board of Revenue · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
- (Mrs.) Tahmina Daultana vs Hafiz Naeem-Ud-Din1996 P.C.T.L.R. 479 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
- (Mrs.) Alhaja Tawakautu Adeela vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-12Read full judgment →
- (Messrs) Adil Brother (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan National ShippingK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 320 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Late) S.M. Younis Rizvi through His Legal Heirs vs Afzal QureshiK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 311 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Muhammad Siddique, Faisalabad vs I. T.O. Companies Circle, Faisalabad1996 P.C.T.L.R. 437 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Mir Hassan Ali vs Muhammad NaseeruddinK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 325 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Abdul Ghafoor vs Muhammad IbrahimK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Syed Altaf Hussain vs Siddique Ahmad ChaudharyK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Maqbool Ahmed Abid, And Other vs MRS. Rehana Kausar And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 50 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Ijazul Haq Qureshi vs 1To Circle (04), Multan1996 P.C.T.L.R. 381 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
- (DR.) Abrar Hussain Ahmed Khan And Other vs Government of Punjab, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Dr) Wasif Ahmed Jalali vs Ghazala IqbalK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 436 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- (Ch.) Muhammad Siddique vs (Ch.) Zahoor Din Etc.(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 1) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- (CH.) Irshad Ahmad Virk vs Commissioner And Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
- Zulifqar Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 113 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqur, Etc. vs Mst. Kausar, Etc.1997 KLR Civil Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 251 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 323 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar and 5 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar alias Bhutto vs The State1995 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that sentenced the appellant to death for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of testimony from related, inimical witnesses and whether the appellant’s 'tender age' constituted a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the eye-witnesses' testimony was credible and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt registration of the FIR. Regarding sentencing, the Court held that while tender age is a relevant consideration, it is not an absolute ground for leniency, particularly in heinous or premeditated offenses. The Court emphasized that sentencing requires a holistic assessment of the nature of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, and the underlying enmity. Finding that the motive remained somewhat obscure and considering the appellant's age, the Court exercised its discretion to convert the death sentence into life imprisonment, while maintaining the fine and granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of related and inimical witnesses require corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Is 'tender age' an absolute mitigating factor that mandates the reduction of a death sentence in murder cases?
- What factors must a court consider when determining whether to reduce a death sentence based on the age of the accused?
- Zulfiqar Ali, Patwari vs Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Board of Revenue and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 554 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1997 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →