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.
- Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 31995 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to retroactively alter the respondent's move-over date from Scale 19 to Scale 20, granting him all consequential benefits. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Tribunal erred in its direction, given that the respondent's service record did not meet the requisite 'good' grading standard required by the relevant instructions for such a move-over. The petitioners argued that the respondent's confidential reports for the preceding five years were insufficient to qualify for the promotion. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the failure to communicate adverse remarks in the respondent's confidential reports in a timely manner does not automatically elevate an 'average' service record to a 'good' one. Finding that the contentions raised regarding the interpretation of service rules and the evaluation of the respondent's record required deeper judicial examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to timely communicate adverse remarks in a service record automatically upgrade an 'average' performance rating to 'good'?
- What are the criteria for qualifying for a move-over from Scale 19 to Scale 20 under WAPDA service instructions?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal direct a retroactive move-over if the service record does not meet the prescribed standards?
- Water and Power Development Authority and others vs Mian1995 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Full Bench reference before the Lahore High Court addressed whether the Electric Inspector has jurisdiction under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act 1910 to adjudicate upon charges determined by WAPDA under section 26-A for the dishonest abstraction of energy. The petitioner WAPDA had raised substantial detection bills against industrial consumers for electricity theft committed by bypassing metering equipment and directly connecting supply lines. The consumers challenged these bills before the Electric Inspector, contending that such assessment fell within the purview of sections 24(2) and 26(6). The Court analyzed the statutory framework and held that the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) is strictly limited to determining whether a meter or measuring apparatus 'is or is not correct'. It does not extend to scrutinizing assessments or detection bills issued under section 26-A for dishonest abstraction or bypassing of meters, where no metering defect is involved. Furthermore, section 24(2) does not independently confer a right of reference to the Electric Inspector. Consequently, the Full Bench answered the reference in the negative, ruling that the Electric Inspector lacks jurisdiction in such matters and aggrieved consumers must seek their remedy before a civil court of plenary jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Electric Inspector has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the determination of charges made by WAPDA under section 26-A for dishonest abstraction of energy?
- Does section 26(6) of the Electricity Act 1910 apply to cases where the metering equipment has been completely bypassed for the dishonest abstraction of energy?
- Does section 24(2) of the Electricity Act 1910 independently confer a general right of reference to the Electric Inspector for any billing dispute?
- Which forum is appropriate for a consumer wishing to challenge a detection bill issued for the dishonest abstraction of electricity under section 26-A of the Electricity Act 1910?
- Water and Power Development Authority And Others vs Mian Ghulam1995 MLD 480 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent against the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for the illegal removal and retention of four pole plastic signboards and for compensation regarding loss of goodwill and mental torture due to tortious acts. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff after finding that electricity bills had been paid well before the due date and disconnection notices were issued arbitrarily. The lower appellate court affirmed these findings. In revision before the Lahore High Court, the petitioners contended that the removal was justified for non-payment, that compensation for the signboards and damages for remote consequences were improperly awarded, and that the quantum of damages was unproved. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the timely payment of dues cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, that the unlawful seizure of property creates liability for its price, that the case involved tortious acts alongside breach of contract, and that in the absence of contrary evidence by the defendants, the courts below rightly assessed the quantum of damages. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
- Whether compensation for remote and indirect damage can be awarded in a suit founded on tortious acts rather than a mere breach of contract?
- Whether failure of a plaintiff to furnish detailed evidence for ascertaining the exact quantum of damages justifies granting only nominal damages?
- Whether a utility authority is justified in removing signboards without waiting for the last date of payment of electricity charges?
- Water and Power Development Authority And Other vs MianK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 74 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority and 2 others vs Abdul Khaliq1995 PLC (C.S.) 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's service appeal against dismissal from service for unauthorized absence was partly allowed by converting the penalty to stoppage of two increments and ordering reinstatement. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the Tribunal proceeded with the matter and decided it in the absence of the petitioners' counsel whose adjournment application was rejected, and that the Tribunal failed to address the crucial objection regarding the service appeal being barred by limitation by 106 days. The Supreme Court held that the question of limitation cannot be waived and must be determined by the court first. Consequently, the Court granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh determination on the question of limitation and the merits after providing a hearing to both parties.
Questions settled- Whether the question of limitation can be waived in judicial or tribunal proceedings?
- Is it mandatory for a court or tribunal to determine the question of limitation first?
- What is the legal effect of a tribunal deciding a service appeal without addressing a raised objection of limitation?
- Wasim Dar vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Waryam vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Waris Khan vs The Inspectorgeneral of Police, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and another1995 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for making a false statement before a Speedy Trial Court, which defamed a Senior Police Officer, and was subsequently found guilty of negligence and inefficiency, resulting in his compulsory retirement from service by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. His departmental appeal before the Inspector-General of Police was also dismissed, leading to the unsuccessful service appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the evidence had been misread and that the penalty imposed was excessive. The core legal question concerned the re-appraisal of evidence and the proportionality and justifiability of the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence on record and to consider whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was justifiable in law.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal misread the evidence on record regarding the charges against the petitioner?
- Is the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon a police officer excessive and unjustifiable in the circumstances of the case?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-appraise evidence in service matters?
- Waris Khan vs The Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar1995 PLC (C.S.) 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, sought leave to appeal against the order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dismissing his service appeal against his compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for making a false statement before a Speedy Trial Court, thereby defaming a Senior Police Officer, and was found guilty of negligence and inefficiency. Following the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the Inspector-General of Police and subsequent dismissal of his service appeal by the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, contending that evidence had been misread and that the penalty imposed was excessive. The core legal question concerned the re-appraisal of evidence and the proportionality of the penalty of compulsory retirement in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence on record and to consider whether the penalty imposed was justifiable in law, laying down the principle regarding the review of departmental penalties and factual findings by service tribunals.
Questions settled- Whether the service tribunal misread the evidence on record while upholding the penalty of compulsory retirement?
- Is the penalty of compulsory retirement disproportionate or excessive for making a false statement before a court resulting in defamation of a senior officer?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-appraise evidence in service matters?
- Waris Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- WAPDA through Its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore And Other vs Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour &.Service Cases 173 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- WAPDA through its Chairman and anothers vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan1995 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 14-12-1994, which accepted the respondent employee's appeal and directed the correction of his date of birth in his service record based on a civil court decree. The core legal question is whether a civil servant is entitled to seek a change in his date of birth near the end of his service based on a civil court decree obtained without the employer being a party, and whether unexplained delay and silence throughout most of his service disentitle him to such relief. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the employee's long silence over thirty years and the binding nature of a decree to which the department was not a party requires detailed consideration, especially in light of established precedent holding that delayed claims for correction of date of birth do not merit a favourable decision.
Questions settled- Is an employer department bound by a civil court decree declaring an employee's date of birth when the department was not a party to the suit?
- Does a civil servant's silence and failure to object to his recorded date of birth for the major portion of his service disentitle him to seek its correction near retirement?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can validly order the correction of a civil servant's date of birth on the basis of a belated declaratory decree?
- WAPDA and others vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1995 PLC 287 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
- WAPDA and others vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
- WAPDA and others vs Mian Hidayatullah1995 CLC 739 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
- WAPDA And Others vs Mian Abdul Aziz1995 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
- Walu Alias Wali Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 265 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Walu alias Wali Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where two individuals were killed by gunfire. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the commencement of the trial, given that multiple investigations by different police agencies had declared him innocent and medical evidence suggested the injury attributed to him was an exit wound. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case constituted a matter of further inquiry. The Court established that the opinion of gazetted police officers declaring an accused innocent cannot be dismissed casually and that the benefit of doubt arising from such reports and medical evidence must extend to the accused at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the mere commencement of a trial or the scheduling of evidence does not constitute a valid ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a trial or the scheduling of evidence constitute a valid ground to refuse bail?
- Can the opinion of gazetted police officers declaring an accused innocent be disregarded at the bail stage?
- Should the benefit of doubt arising from conflicting police investigation reports and medical evidence be extended to an accused seeking bail?
- Wali Muhammad Etc . vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 609 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad and another vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Wali Jan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1170 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Wali and 10 others vs Akbar and 5 others1995 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondents' regular second appeal, restoring the trial court's decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondents instituted the suit claiming ownership and possession of the suit land. The core legal questions involved whether the declaratory suit filed in 1977 regarding a 1922 mutation was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, and whether the right to sue accrued from the date of the mutation or when the respondents' rights were actually interfered with during consolidation proceedings. The Supreme Court held that Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to such declaratory suits, and the starting point of limitation is when the right to sue accrues or when the plaintiff's title is actually challenged or interfered with. The Court laid down the principle that for a plaintiff in physical possession as a co-sharer, the right to bring a declaratory suit is a continuing right, and every denial or invasion of right furnishes a fresh cause of action.
Questions settled- Does Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act apply to a suit for declaration with a prayer for consequential relief?
- When does the right to sue accrue in a declaratory suit concerning property where the plaintiff remains in physical possession as a co-sharer?
- Is a plaintiff in possession as a co-sharer bound to sue on every denial of their right, or does every invasion furnish a fresh cause of action?
- Does a suit for declaration of title to property constitute a subsisting and continuing right as long as the right to the property subsists?
- Walayat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- Walayat vs (Mst.) Kanfez FatimaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
- Walayat Shah vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
- Walayat Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Yusaf and 15 others1995 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
- Walayat Ali Mir vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1995 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal regarding the refusal of his promotion within the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The core legal questions concerned whether an appointment prohibited by service regulations could be sustained and whether the competent authority’s discretion to reject Promotion Board recommendations is absolute. The Supreme Court held that the induction of the respondent, who had been dismissed from prior service, violated Regulation 10(8) of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, which strictly bars the employment of individuals dismissed from any employer. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while the competent authority possesses discretion, it is not unfettered; it must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in good faith. The arbitrary rejection of the Promotion Board’s recommendations, without valid reasons, to accommodate an illegally appointed candidate was deemed unlawful. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be granted all benefits accruing from the promotion he was denied in 1987, as the administrative actions were found to be arbitrary and lacking bona fides.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority arbitrarily reject the recommendations of a Promotion Board without providing valid reasons?
- Does the bar on employing a person dismissed from any other employer apply even if there is intervening employment?
- Is the discretion of an administrative authority in service matters absolute or subject to judicial review?
- Can an appointment made in violation of service regulations be treated as valid?
- Walayat Ali Mir vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Piac)1995 PLC (C.S.) 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, brought with leave of the Court, challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against the refusal of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) to promote him to Pay Group IX. The core legal questions involved whether an appointment prohibited by law could be made in a properly constituted service, and whether the competent authority could arbitrarily reject the recommendations of a promotion board without providing valid reasons. The Supreme Court held that the induction and absorption of respondent No. 2 violated Regulation 10(8) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, as he had been dismissed from previous service by court-martial, creating a strict statutory bar against his employment. The Court further held that while the competent authority possesses discretion to accept or reject promotion board recommendations, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or without giving valid reasons on record, especially when tainted by mala fides aimed at accommodating an ineligible person. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted all consequential retirement benefits accruing from the promotion he was unlawfully denied.
Questions settled- Whether in a graded, properly constituted service, an appointment prohibited by law could be made?
- Does Regulation 10(8) of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 bar the employment of a person previously dismissed from service by any employer?
- Whether the competent authority has unfettered discretion to reject the recommendations of a Promotion Board without recording reasons?
- Can an executive authority exercise statutory discretion arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without regard to the object of the governing rules and regulations?
- Wajid Ali Khan vs The Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines1995 PLC 613 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
- Waheed-Ul-Islam And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 436 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
- Waheed alias Gogi vs The State1995 SCMR 1495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, Waheed alias Gogi, for the attempted commission of Zina-bil-Jabr with a five-year-old minor. The trial court convicted the petitioner under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fifteen stripes. The Federal Shariat Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal, maintaining the conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt, based on the testimony of the minor victim and supporting witnesses, warranted interference under the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the evidence or the impugned judgment, noting that the prosecution witnesses were credible and the delay in the First Information Report was adequately explained. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are supported by reliable evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with such findings in its appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when the evidence is credible?
- Is the testimony of a minor victim sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted Zina-bil-Jabr when supported by other witnesses?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal where the evidence has been consistently believed by two lower courts?
- Wagha vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- V. Verghese and another vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another1995 PTD 1131 [210 I T R 511] · karnataka High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ussama Tariq vs The Administrator (Residual Properties)/Additional1995 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the ownership of a property designated as a 'Kothee'. The petitioner's predecessor was allotted the land in 1953, with the allotment confirmed in 1959. Despite a 1961 report questioning the nature of the property, the Additional Settlement Commissioner determined it was subservient to agricultural purposes, a finding affirmed by Martial Law Authorities and never challenged. Decades later, following an ejectment petition against a tenant, the Deputy Administrator declared the original allotment void ab initio, treating the property as residuary property and transferring it to the tenant. The core legal question is whether an order passed under repealed settlement laws, which had attained finality and constituted a past and closed transaction, could be reopened by the Deputy Administrator. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, questioning the authority of the Deputy Administrator to sit in judgment over the decisions of competent settlement authorities and to reopen matters that had long since attained finality.
Questions settled- Can an order passed under repealed settlement laws that has attained finality be reopened by a Deputy Administrator?
- Does a Deputy Administrator have the authority to sit in judgment over decisions made by competent Settlement Authorities?
- Can a property allotment that has become a past and closed transaction be declared void ab initio decades later?
- Usman Enterprises vs Collector of Customs, Central Excise Quetta"1995 CLC 1137 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the assessment of customs duty on an imported scrap vessel, M.T. "SHINING STAR," by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner contended that the assessment at U.S. $160 per Light Displacement Ton (LDT) was arbitrary, illegal, and based on an unlawful departmental letter dated 7-1-1992, which this Court had previously struck down. The core legal question was whether the customs authorities acted arbitrarily or in accordance with the statutory requirements for determining the "normal price" under the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that while the 1992 letter was indeed unlawful, the specific assessment in this case was not based on that letter. Instead, the Court found that the Customs Authorities had properly exercised their discretion by considering the prevalent market values of similar vessels imported during the same period, such as M.T. "Hellas" and M.T. "Horizon." The Court affirmed that customs authorities possess the discretion to determine the normal price of imported goods, provided such discretion is exercised reasonably, based on evidence, and in compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969.
Questions settled- Does the determination of the 'normal price' of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 require the customs authorities to consider the value of similar or identical items imported during the same period?
- Can the High Court interfere with the assessment of customs duty if the authorities have exercised their discretion based on available evidence and market comparisons?
- Is an assessment of customs duty valid if it is based on market evidence rather than an unlawful departmental directive?
- Usman Enterprises vs Collector of Customs Central Excise, QuettaK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custam Cases 29 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Uris and anotherConvicts/s vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs Akbar Ali1995 SCMR 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent was held entitled to the benefit of average marks under Proviso-I to Regulation 6 of the University Regulations due to a missing examination paper. The respondent appeared in the B.A. 2nd Annual Examination, but his result for English Paper A was delayed and subsequently declared missing. The University argued that the respondent should re-appear in the paper, whereas the respondent insisted on average marks. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the University could not shift responsibility for the lost record to the candidate. The Supreme Court examined the eventualities under Regulation 6 concerning lost examination papers and found that it was established that the respondent had handed over the paper to the Superintendent, making the proviso applicable. Finding no infirmity in the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that candidates are not to be penalized for misplaced answer books after proper submission.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate is entitled to average marks under University Regulation 6 when an answer book is lost after being received?
- Can a university shift the responsibility of a lost examination paper onto a candidate who duly appeared and submitted the paper?
- Under what circumstances does the proviso regarding the grant of average marks for lost answer books apply to university examinations?
- University of the Punjab vs Ghulam MustafaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
- Universal Supply Corporation and others vs State of Rajasthan and another1995 PTD 598 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-07-30Read full judgment →
- United Stones Crusher and anothers/s vs Masood Hussain and another1995 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- United Impex and 3 others vs Fazal Ahmad1995 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- United Distributors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Government of Pakistan through Member, Judicial, Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 3 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the valuation of imported goods by Customs authorities. The petitioner challenged the assessment of imported refrigerators, arguing that the Customs authorities failed to follow the mandatory legal procedure for fixing Import Trade Prices (I.T.P.). Specifically, the petitioner contended that after the withdrawal of a formal I.T.P. notification, the authorities relied on a mere internal memorandum or 'advice' to fix values, rather than issuing a valid notification as required by law. The core legal question is whether Customs authorities can lawfully assess goods based on an internal advisory memorandum without issuing a formal notification under the relevant statutory provisions, or whether they must instead resort to the valuation procedures prescribed under the Customs Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the substantial legal question regarding the validity of the valuation method employed by the Customs authorities in the absence of a properly notified I.T.P., thereby necessitating a deeper examination of the procedural requirements for customs valuation.
Questions settled- Can Customs authorities fix the value of imported goods based on an internal advisory memorandum rather than a formal notification?
- Is a notification required under Section 25-B of the Customs Act 1969 for the valid fixation of Import Trade Prices?
- Must Customs authorities resort to the valuation procedures under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 in the absence of a validly issued Import Trade Price notification?
- United Distributors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Munir & Company1995 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a trial court's decision to restrain the encashment of bank guarantees provided by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner, a supplier of pesticides, held bank guarantees furnished by the respondent. The respondent subsequently sued the petitioner for damages, alleging the supply of substandard goods, and obtained an injunction preventing the encashment of these guarantees. The core legal question was whether the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee should be restrained pending the outcome of a suit for damages. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the injunctions barring the encashment were improper. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' orders. It established the principle that while a beneficiary may encash a bank guarantee, they must provide security for an equivalent amount to ensure the due performance of any potential decree that might be passed in favor of the respondent, thereby balancing the rights of the beneficiary with the potential claims of the opposing party.
Questions settled- Can a court restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee pending the outcome of a suit for damages?
- Is a beneficiary entitled to encash a bank guarantee while providing security for the potential decree amount?
- United Bank Ltd. vs Noor Textile Mills Limited and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Hassan Ali & Company Limited1995 PLD Karachi 495 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Canadian Apparel Company Ltd. and 8 others1995 PLD Karachi 577 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications filed under Order 37, Rule 4 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to recall and review a decree passed by the High Court acting as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions addressed were whether a Special Court possesses the inherent power to review its own orders under Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a suit filed before the accrual of a cause of action is maintainable if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the suit. The Court held that a Special Court retains the power of review under Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the Ordinance does not expressly exclude it. However, the Court dismissed the applications as time-barred. Additionally, the Court established that pleadings should not be construed with excessive technicality and that a suit filed prematurely may be maintained if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings to prevent multiplicity of litigation and ensure substantial justice.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 have the power to review its own orders under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a suit filed before the accrual of a cause of action maintainable if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Should pleadings in civil suits be construed with strict technicality or with a view to ensuring substantial justice?
- Does Article 162 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to review applications filed in a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- United Bank Limited, Karachi and another vs Muhammad Hashim Khoso1995 PLC 398 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- United Bank Limited vs Munir Ahmad Naseer and 2 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by United Bank Limited against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the bank's writ petition in limine. The respondent, a Grade-II Officer, had been dismissed from service for misappropriation and successfully challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Labour Court, which set aside the dismissal order. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently upheld the reinstatement but granted 50% back benefits. The core legal question is whether a Grade-II Bank Officer, who performs managerial and supervisory duties, qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby possessing the standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court failed to provide a speaking order on this jurisdictional issue despite it being raised. The Court held that the question of jurisdiction regarding the status of such officers requires in-depth examination, and consequently suspended the operation of the High Court's judgment pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a Grade-II Bank Officer performing managerial and supervisory duties qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is a High Court required to provide a speaking order when dismissing a writ petition that raises a substantial question of jurisdiction?
- Uni Ted Bank of India, Madras vs Bank of Baroda, Madras1997 P.C.T.L.R. 549 · Madras High Court · 1996-02-09Read full judgment →
- Umeruddin vs Sher Gul Khan Niazi and another1995 CLC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Umer Din vs The President, National Bank of Pakistan, Head Office, Karachi and 3 others1995 PLC 346 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a murder conviction and death sentence passed on the appellant, Umar Hayat, for allegedly shooting and causing the death of the deceased in furtherance of common intention with two co-accused. The trial court acquitted one co-accused, while the High Court acquitted the second co-accused upon finding that medical evidence indicated the fatal injuries could have resulted from a single shot and that eye-witnesses were unreliable as to the acquitted co-accused. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant's conviction could stand based on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses whose statements had been disbelieved regarding two co-accused. Reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court held that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding co-accused, the rule of prudence requires independent material corroboration before relying on their testimony against the remaining accused. As the Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed the recovered weapon did not match the crime empties, independent corroboration was absent. The appeal was accepted and the appellant acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be safely sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding co-accused without independent corroboration?
- Does a negative Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding a recovered weapon destroy its value as corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
- Whether the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration when eye-witnesses exaggerate the number of accused in a criminal case?
- Umar Hayat vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 11 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan And Another1995 MLD 439 · Board of Revenue · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 634 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Umar Draz vs The State1995 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the findings of the lower courts in a criminal case. The core legal question presented for consideration is whether the lower courts correctly applied the established principles governing the appraisal of evidence in criminal proceedings, as previously laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the lower courts' evidentiary assessment. The judgment serves as a procedural step in the appellate process, focusing on the necessity of ensuring that criminal convictions are based on a proper and legally sound evaluation of the evidence on record, in accordance with the standards set by the apex court.
Questions settled- Did the lower courts correctly follow the principles governing the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases?
- Is the appraisal of evidence by lower courts subject to review by the Supreme Court upon the grant of leave to appeal?
- Umar Din and anothers vs Mst. Sharifan and another1995 PLD Supreme Court 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the succession of tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, specifically regarding a non-original tenant in Bahawalpur. The core legal questions were whether Section 20 or Section 21(b) of the Act governed succession for a non-original tenant, and what law regulated succession in Bahawalpur at the relevant time. The Supreme Court held that Section 20 applies exclusively to original tenants, while Section 21(b) governs succession for non-original tenants, requiring the tenancy to be treated as agricultural land acquired by the original tenant. Consequently, succession is determined by the personal law of the parties unless a specific custom is proven. The Court affirmed that under Section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, the burden of proving a custom excluding daughters from inheritance lies on the party asserting it. Since the appellants failed to establish such a custom, the Court ruled that Muslim Personal Law applies, upholding the mutation in favor of the daughter and brothers. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 apply to the succession of tenancy rights of a non-original tenant?
- How is succession to tenancy rights determined under Section 21(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when asserting a custom contrary to personal law under Section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872?
- In the absence of proof of a specific custom, which law governs the succession of agricultural land in Bahawalpur for Muslim parties?
- Uaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 573 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
- U. B. L. vs Messrs Farrukh Hayat Tiwana And Other1995 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
- U. B. L. vs Farrukh Hayat Tiwana and others1995 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
- Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Wan Ahmed and 2 others1995 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Trustees of the Port Of Karachi vs Mian Ahmed And OtherK.L.R 1995 Civil Cases 317 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Trustees of the Port of Karachi Established under KPT Act, 1886 at1995 PLC 259 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Town Planning, Public Healh Engineering and Rural DevelopmentK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 636 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Town Committee, Malakwal Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat through Chairman vs Akhtar Ali and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 720 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- TM Muhammad vs Muhammad Qadeer Chaudhry and 2 others1995 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot of land. The petitioner, the allottee of the plot, entered into an agreement with the respondent, who paid the full consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, deeming it premature as the petitioner had not yet acquired ownership of the plot, despite finding that the full sale consideration had been paid. The first appellate court reversed this finding and decreed the suit. In the subsequent Regular Second Appeal, the High Court maintained the decree, incorporating an offer by the respondent to pay an additional sum to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the suit for specific performance was premature and whether the respondent's alleged initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner justified refusing specific performance. The Supreme Court held that the suit was not premature and that the initiation of criminal proceedings, even if frivolous, did not constitute valid grounds to refuse specific performance. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of consideration and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a suit for specific performance be dismissed as premature solely because the seller has not yet acquired formal ownership of the property?
- Does the initiation of criminal proceedings by a purchaser against a seller constitute a valid ground for refusing a decree of specific performance?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of sale consideration be re-agitated in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Tivi B.V. (a Dutch Corporation) Johannes Vermeerstraat 18, Netherlands vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1995 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Tivi B.v vs Deputy Registrar Trade MarksK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 531 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Tiladar vs Mst. Roheeda1995 MLD 1586 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
- Tika Alias Essa vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 167 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
- Therya vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi through General Manager1995 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- The Vice-President (Administration), National Bank of Pakistan and 21995 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal concerning a service and employment dispute involving a departmental enquiry against an employee. The core legal question examined by the court is whether, when an employee is proceeded ex parte in a departmental enquiry, it remains necessary to serve upon them the Enquiry Report and the second show-cause notice, and whether the subsequent order of dismissal passed against the respondent is defective on that account. The court granted leave to appeal to thoroughly examine these questions regarding natural justice and procedural requirements in departmental proceedings. The principle laid down relates to the procedural safeguards and requirements of natural justice regarding the provision of enquiry reports and show-cause notices to employees, even when proceeded against ex parte in departmental enquiries.
Questions settled- Whether it is necessary to serve the Enquiry Report and the second show-cause notice on an employee who has been proceeded ex parte in a departmental enquiry?
- Can an order of dismissal passed against an employee be declared defective if the Enquiry Report and second show-cause notice are not served upon him?
- The State vs Rifat Jillani1995 P Cr. L J 1928 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
- The State vs Rashid Ahmad1995 P Cr. L J 2001 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Nazar HussainK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 601 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Sharif and 3 others Muhammad Yasin1995 SCMR 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprised two criminal appeals filed by the State against judgments of the High Court and trial Court acquitting several respondents charged with murder and related offences under Sections 302, 148, 149, 109, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below suffered from gross misreading or non-reading of evidence so as to justify appellate interference. Dismissing both State appeals, the Supreme Court held that no interference with an acquittal is warranted unless the lower court's findings are artificial, perverse, or cause a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence. The Court further laid down that prompt lodging of an F.I.R. and medical evidence showing the nature and number of injuries cannot independently corroborate unconvincing ocular testimony to convict co-accused against whom no crime weapons were recovered, and that an unexplained delay in performing a post-mortem examination creates a presumption of benefit in favour of the accused.
Questions settled- What is the standard of review applied by the Supreme Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 Cr.P.C.?
- Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination give rise to a presumption in favour of the accused?
- Can prompt lodging of an F.I.R. or medical evidence independently corroborate unconvincing ocular testimony against co-accused from whom no weapons were recovered?
- The State vs Muhammad ShafiK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 231 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Bakhsh and others1995 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Aslam And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 715 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Ashraf, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Arshad Javed1995 MLD 667 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
- The State vs Mazhar Hussain And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 204 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
- The State vs Mahbooburrehman1995 P Cr. L J 600 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
- The State vs Latif and others1995 P Cr. L J 286 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
- The State vs Iftikhar AHMEDNonPetitioner1995 P Cr. L J 1479 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- The State vs Ghulam GhausK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
- The State vs Faqir Muhammad And Another1995 MLD 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-11Read full judgment →
- The State vs Editor, Printer, Publisher and Proprietor of Daily 'Muslim', Islamabad1995 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Show-cause notices were issued under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 to the Editor, Printer, Publisher, and Proprietor of the daily newspaper 'The Muslim' regarding an editorial published on 15 April 1994. The editorial criticized the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive and cast serious aspersions on the judiciary and judicial system. The core legal questions were whether the publication constituted contempt and whether the respondents' written apologies and corrective measures justified the discharge of the contempt notice. The Lahore High Court emphasized that the separation of the judiciary from the executive is a constitutional mandate under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and highlighted the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions under Articles 189 and 190. However, observing that the respondents submitted an unconditional written apology, made sufficient amends by supporting the constitutional mandate in a subsequent editorial, and noting no objection from the State, the Court accepted the apology and discharged the contempt notices.
Questions settled- Whether contempt proceedings initiated against the editor, printer, and publisher of a newspaper can be discharged upon submission of a written apology accompanied by subsequent corrective editorial commentary?
- Whether judgments and directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the separation of the judiciary from the executive are binding on all executive and judicial authorities under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution?
- Whether judicial proceedings conducted by executive magistrates after the judicially mandated deadline for judicial separation are lawful and valid?
- The State vs Doda1995 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- The State vs Bakhtiar Ahmed and another1995 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan were directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions of the respondents under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, holding that their trial before the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 was coram non judice. The core legal question was whether locally manufactured .32 bore and .30 bore pistols described as 'Mausers' qualified as automatic or semi-automatic weapons 'such as Klashnikov, a G-III rifle or any other type of assault rifle' under Section 13-A and the Schedule to the Act of 1975, so as to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the Special Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that 'Mauser' is merely a manufacturer's name and the locally produced pistols did not fall within the scheduled category of assault rifles or similar weapons envisioned under the Act. Consequently, the trial before the Special Court was without jurisdiction, and both appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether ordinary or locally manufactured pistols described as 'Mausers' fall within the definition of automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 have jurisdiction to try an offence involving an ordinary pistol not of the class of a Kalashnikov, G-3, or assault rifle?
- Does a trial conducted by a Special Court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction render the proceedings coram non judice?
- The State vs Bakhtiar Ahmad1995 SCMR 1285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed by the State against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside convictions under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, ruling that the trial before a Special Court was coram non judice. The core legal question was whether locally produced pistols, described as Mauser pistols, constitute automatic or semi-automatic weapons akin to Kalashnikovs or G-3 rifles, thereby falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Courts established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's finding that the recovered pistols did not fall within the scope of the Act. The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, holding that the statutory list of weapons is not exhaustive but illustrative of a specific class of terror-inducing assault weapons. Consequently, ordinary pistols, regardless of their firing mechanism, do not automatically trigger the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Courts unless they share the characteristics of the assault rifles specified in the statute.
Questions settled- Do locally produced pistols classified as Mauser fall within the definition of automatic or semi-automatic weapons under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Does the principle of ejusdem generis apply to the interpretation of weapon categories listed in the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Are trials held before a Special Court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction considered coram non judice?
- The State through Federal Investigation Agency Ual, Islamabad vs Ch. Shujaat Hussain and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
- The State through Deputy Attorney General vs Sher Ahmad1995 P Cr. L J 917 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- The State through A.-G. Sindh vs Azizullah1995 MLD 1405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- The State Through A. G., Sindh vs Azizullah1995 MLD 1405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- The State Life Insurance vs Ch. Abdul Ghani1995 MLD 627 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
- The State and another- vs Darius B. Kandawala1995 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against an interim order passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, whereby bail was granted to the respondent in connection with criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 199 of 1994 registered under the Customs Act, 1969 and Act II of 1947, while admitting a quashment petition to hearing. The core legal question raised was whether a High Court can grant bail under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a formal bail application, and in the presence of specific provisions under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regulating bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the State required detailed consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of granting bail in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the presence of specific provisions under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a High Court grant bail without a formal bail application being moved by the accused?