Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• The Sindh Club, Karachi through its Secretary vs Muhammad Arshad1995 PLC 167 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, through, Secretary HealthK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05
  termination of servicemisconductprobationerregular inquirycivil servantservice tribunalstigma
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Government of the Punjab challenges the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal setting aside the termination of the respondent's services as a Stenographer and ordering his reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent's services had been terminated purportedly under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, following allegations of misconduct and unsatisfactory performance during probation. The core legal question was whether the services of a temporary employee or probationer could be terminated on grounds of misconduct without conducting a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a temporary employee's services can be terminated simpliciter in accordance with their terms of employment or for unsatisfactory work without an inquiry, any termination founded upon allegations of misconduct amounts to dismissal or removal, which casts a stigma and necessitates a fair opportunity of defense through a regular inquiry under the applicable disciplinary rules. The key principle laid down is that the distinction between a simple termination of a temporary employee and termination for misconduct dictates the mandatory requirement of a regular inquiry where misconduct is the foundational basis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of a temporary employee or probationer can be terminated on the ground of misconduct without holding a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does the termination of a probationer's service for unsatisfactory work amount to dismissal or removal from service?
  • What is the distinction between a simpliciter termination of a temporary employee and termination based on allegations of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• The Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power1995 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06
  work-charge employeespay scale fixationservice matterconstitutional jurisdictionacquiescenceIndustrial Relations Ordinancetransfer of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the pay scale entitlement of former WAPDA employees transferred to the Irrigation Department. The respondents, initially employed as Tubewell Operators by WAPDA in National Pay Scale No. 4, were transferred to the Irrigation Department in 1978. Upon transfer, to avoid termination, they opted to accept National Pay Scale No. 2, consistent with the Irrigation Department's existing cadre. Subsequently, they challenged this pay fixation under Section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court initially ruled in their favor, but the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this, citing the employees' voluntary undertaking and the delay in filing the grievance. The High Court later set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the payment of the higher scale. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether work-charge employees, having opted for a lower pay scale upon transfer and acquiesced to that arrangement for years, remain entitled to their previous higher pay scale, and whether the High Court properly exercised jurisdiction despite the constitutional bar under Article 212(2).

  Questions settled

  • Can work-charge employees claim a higher pay scale after voluntarily opting for a lower scale upon their transfer and absorption into a new department?
  • Does the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in service matters involving pay fixation?
  • Does long-term acquiescence to a specific pay scale by an employee preclude a subsequent legal challenge to that pay fixation?
  Read full judgment →
• The President of Pakistan vs Ms. Benazir Bhutto1995 CLC 418 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• The Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax Cos. III, Karachi1995 PTD 869 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• The National Savings Staff Union, Karachi through its General1995 PLC 400 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Anwar Rahmani1995 CLC 992 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited, Karachi vs Muhammad Atiq-Uz-Zaman Khan1995 PLC 729 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• The Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Education and anothers1995 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-28
  service lawregularization of servicesad hoc appointmentcivil servantleave to appealN.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., which had granted the respondent's claim for regularization of service from 19 March 1987. The respondent, initially appointed as a Junior Trade Instructor (Mechanical) on a stopgap basis, sought regularization under Section 3 of The N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987. The core legal question is whether the respondent, who held a post in BPS-14, was entitled to the benefits of the 1987 Act, specifically regarding the date of regularization. The petitioner contended that the Act's provisions, particularly when read with Rule 3(a) and the relevant Schedule, restrict the applicability of the regularization process to posts filled upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, which generally pertains to BPS-16 and above. The Supreme Court found that the Advocate-General’s argument regarding the interpretation of 'post' and the scope of the Act raised substantial questions of law requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the correct application of the statutory regularization criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 3 of The N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987 apply to civil servants holding posts below BPS-16?
  • What is the definition of a 'post' under Section 2(1)(d) of The N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987?
  • Are posts in BPS-14 subject to the regularization requirements mandated for posts filled by the recommendation of the Public Service Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• The General Manager, Pakistan Telecommunication Northern Zone, Peshawar and another vs The Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1995 PLC 709 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• The Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Naushero Feroze vs Qadir1995 PLC 664 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• The English Cold Storage Company through its Partner and 2 others vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and 4 others1995 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Express Company Ltd. vs Messrs Haji Khushi Muhammad1995 MLD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Express Company Ltd. vs Haji Khushi Muhammad1995 MLD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur and 3 others1995 PLC 684 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, Larkana and 2 others vs Allah Bux1995 PLC 172 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• The District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Muhammad Iqbal1995 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• The District Agricultural Supply Officer, Nawabshah and another vs Ali Murad and another1995 PLC 409 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Director, Agricultural Supplies, Saso Sukkur Division, Sukkur and 2 others vs Javed Iqbal Bhatti1995 PLC 105 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• The Cooperative Model Town Society vs Punjab Labour Appellate1995 PLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06
  Cooperative Societies ActRoad Transport Workers OrdinanceIndustrial Relations OrdinanceJurisdiction of Labour CourtDispute touching the business of the societyWorkmanTermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the Cooperative Model Town Society challenging the orders of the Punjab Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the grievance petition of a bus conductor whose services were terminated by the society. The core legal questions involved whether a bus conductor employed by a cooperative society falls within the definition of a workman under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is barred under sections 54 and 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 in service matters. The Lahore High Court held that the employee was a worker under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 and that service matters of employees do not constitute disputes 'touching the business of the society' under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, thereby preserving the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Court laid down the principle that the expression 'dispute touching the business of the society' excludes internal service and employment disputes, and that the definitions of industry and establishment under labor laws encompass activities carried out by cooperative societies employing workers for hire or reward.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service matters of employees of a cooperative society constitute a dispute touching the business of the society under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the Labour Court stand barred under section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 in relation to the termination of a society's employee?
  • Is a bus conductor employed by a cooperative society operating a transport service considered a worker under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961?
  • Do the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance apply to a cooperative society employing workers for its aims and objects?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Lahore vs Mst.1995 PTD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-19
  Income TaxLimitationSection 3 Limitation ActReference ApplicationDismissal in LimineStatutory DutyAppellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the department's reference on the ground of limitation. The department contended that the issue of limitation could not be considered at the preliminary stage of admitting the reference application before the High Court. The High Court rejected this argument, observing that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908, the statutory provisions governing limitation are mandatory and peremptory. The Court held that an obligation is cast upon courts of first instance and appeal to take notice of limitation and dismiss time-barred suits, appeals, or applications, regardless of whether limitation is set up as a defence by the parties or raised in the pleadings. Consequently, the High Court held that the department's reference before the Tribunal was barred by limitation, affirmed the Tribunal's decision, and dismissed the reference application in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can consider and decide the issue of limitation at the stage of admitting a reference application?
  • Whether a court is bound under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 to dismiss a time-barred application even if limitation has not been pleaded by the parties?
  • Can the mandatory statutory requirement of limitation be waived by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others vs Raja Mumtaz Ahmed, Superintendent of Police,Cia Staff, Rawalpindi1995 PLC (C.S.) 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  out of turn promotionservice tribunalcivil servantdistinguished performanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which allowed the respondent police officer's appeal and granted him out-of-turn promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police with effect from a back date. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent was entitled to an out-of-turn promotion based on his distinguished performance in busting a foreign exchange racket, notwithstanding subsequent government policy decisions. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal committed no infirmity in granting the promotion, noting that section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 explicitly provides for out-of-turn promotions for outstanding performance, thereby overriding contrary departmental instructions. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant is entitled to out-of-turn promotion for outstanding performance under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Do statutory provisions regarding out-of-turn promotion override contrary government policy decisions?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal judgment granting promotion when supported by statutory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Executive, Progressive Papers Limited, Lahore and 2 others vs Shaukat Hamid1995 PLC 143 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• The Chairman, S.R.T.C., Hyderabad and another vs Muhammad Hashim1995 PLC 485 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Textile Machinery Company Employees' Union, Karachi vs Messrs Textile1995 PLC 22 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Telegraph Stores and Workshop Workmen Union, Kotri through General Secretary vs Registrar, Trade Union, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others1995 PLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Tehmina Mufti vs University of Sindh, Jamshoro and another1995 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-21
  personal hearingreview petitionnatural justiceuniversity employeetermination of servicestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the termination of her services as a University Lecturer due to unauthorized absence. The core legal question is whether a statutory right of review, when silent on the matter, implicitly carries a right of personal hearing akin to an appeal. The Supreme Court held that where a statute provides a remedy of review which is the sole recourse against an adverse order of the Syndicate, such review is to be equated with an appeal, and thus the principle that a right of hearing is silently implied applies. The Court laid down the principle that when a statute provides a right of appeal or a substantive review remedy against a penal or adverse administrative order, the affected person must be afforded an opportunity of being heard personally, even if the statutory provision is silent on personal hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a right of review provided under a statute includes an implied right to be personally heard even if the statutory provision is silent on the matter?
  • Does an ostensible Ordinance issued under a university statute possess statutory force if not promulgated in accordance with constitutional provisions?
  • Whether an order passed in review by a university syndicate without affording a personal hearing to the aggrieved employee is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehmina Bashir vs Abdul Rauf And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Teeja alias. Hira and 22 others vs Messrs Noor Trading Corporation, Hyderabad through Manager and another1995 PLC 32 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Tayyab vs The State1995 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-17
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradecriminal appealbenefit of doubtdelay in identification parademuffled facesre-appraisal of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 365-A read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for kidnapping for ransom. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of a description or identification marks in the initial police statements, and given material contradictions regarding whether the abductors had muffled faces, alongside an inordinate delay in holding the identification parade. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to a two-month unexplained delay in holding the identification parade, contradictory testimonies of abductees regarding muffled faces, and unreliable dock identification. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that an unexplained, inordinate delay in conducting an identification parade, coupled with material contradictions among eyewitnesses concerning facial concealment, severely undermines the evidentiary value of identification and renders a conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be maintained when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in holding an identification parade?
  • Does a material contradiction between eyewitnesses regarding whether the abductors had muffled faces render the identification doubtful?
  • Is dock identification without prior reliable identification proceedings sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Taus Khan vs The State and 2 others1995 MLD 1775 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Taus Khan vs The State And 2 Other1995 MLD 1775 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Tauheed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 653 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab and others1995 MLD 912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Traders (Pvt) Ltd. vs Govt. of Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Taslimul Islam vs Additional Commissioner and 9 others1997 MLD 40 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq Majeed Chaudhry vs Lahore Stock Exchange (Guarantee) Ltd.1995 PLD Lahore 572 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State and others1995 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Mst, Zarda Begum and another1995 CLC 1102 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-12-26
  restitution of conjugal rightsforeign judgmentVakalatnamaratification of agencyCode of Civil Procedureburden of proofdissolution of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and a declaration that a foreign divorce decree is null and void. The core legal questions were whether an appeal filed without a Vakalatnama is maintainable upon subsequent ratification, and whether a foreign judgment can be declared void without the appellant producing the judgment in evidence to prove it falls under statutory exceptions. The Court held that the absence of a Vakalatnama at the time of filing is a curable irregularity, not an illegality, and can be ratified by the client under the law of agency. On the merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to produce the foreign decree in evidence or prove that it fell within the exceptions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proof lies on the party challenging a foreign judgment to demonstrate it meets the statutory exceptions; without producing the judgment, such a challenge is legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal filed by a counsel without a Vakalatnama be validated by subsequent ratification by the client?
  • Is the failure to file a Vakalatnama at the time of instituting legal proceedings an illegality or a curable irregularity?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the party challenging a foreign judgment to establish that it falls within the exceptions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court declare a foreign decree null and void if the party challenging it fails to produce the decree in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 975 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-31
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationdacoityCriminal Procedure CodeHudood Ordinancebenefit of doubtfurther inquirypersonal bondtentative assessmentreasonable grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the cancellation of post-arrest bail by a single judge of the High Court, which had previously been granted by another judge of the same High Court in a dacoity case registered under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question revolved around the grounds required for cancelling bail once granted, especially when two judges arrive at contradictory conclusions on the existence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's guilt. The Supreme Court held that considerations for granting and cancelling bail are distinct, requiring strong and exceptional grounds for cancellation. It emphasized that where reasonable doubt arises regarding an accused's participation or guilt, or where contradictory judicial opinions exist, the benefit of doubt should extend to the accused even at the bail stage, making it a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court allowed the appeal, restoring the bail.

  Questions settled

  • What are the considerations for cancellation of bail once granted by a competent court?
  • Can bail be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Does the benefit of reasonable doubt apply at the bail stage?
  • What is the effect of contradictory judicial opinions on the existence of reasonable grounds for an accused's guilt at the bail stage?
  • Should accused persons in bailable, petty, or less than ten-year imprisonment offences be unnecessarily detained in jail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 282 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq Alias Tara, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Hussain vs Sohail Fazal1995 MLD 468 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State1995 SCMR 1538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-24
  circumstantial evidencemurdersodomyleave to appealappreciation of evidencechild witnessdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under section 302/377 P.P.C. for the murder and sodomy of a minor student. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and a child witness who went to the petitioner's house searching for the victim, knocked on the door, and saw the petitioner emerge in a perplexed state with blood-stained clothes before fleeing. Upon entering, they found the victim strangled and bound, which medical evidence confirmed. The core legal question involved the proper appreciation and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the crime itself. The Supreme Court held that the unbroken chain of proved circumstances—including the petitioner's presence, his immediate flight, the recovery of the body from the premises, and corroborating medical evidence—irresistibly pointed to the guilt of the accused and excluded any other reasonable hypothesis. The Court laid down that where circumstances are undesigned, proved beyond doubt, and form an unshakeable chain incompatible with innocence, they furnish a safer basis for conviction than direct evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What are the established principles for evaluating and appreciating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases?
  • Can a conviction for murder and sodomy be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and medical corroboration in the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the crime?
  • What evidentiary value is attached to the immediate flight and perplexed conduct of an accused discovered at the scene of a crime?
  • How should the testimony of a child witness be evaluated when corroborated by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Khanewal, Districtkhanewal And OtherK.L.R. 1987 Criminal Cases 589 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Station Commandar Pakistan Army, Cantt. Sialkot1995 CLC 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and others vs The State1995 SCMR 1776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06
  triple murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessmotive in murderballistic evidencenight occurrencecapital punishmentcompensation to legal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose from cross criminal appeals regarding a triple murder committed during Sehri time in Ramazan. Three convicts appealed their convictions and the confirmation of death sentences (and life imprisonment for one convict), arguing that the eyewitnesses were interested relatives, the night was dark, and the alleged motive was too weak to warrant capital punishment. Simultaneously, the complainant appealed against sentence reduction and the omission of compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. It held that the ocular testimony was credible and corroborated by ballistic evidence matching crime empties with recovered firearms. The Court clarified that there is no legal requirement to allege or prove motive to award the normal penalty of death when guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Premeditated trespass into a victim's dwelling precludes presumptions of sudden provocation. Furthermore, while fine under PPC cannot strictly equate to statutory compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C., the Court declined rectification as the entire fine was already directed to the heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution legally required to allege and prove a motive in order to justify the award of a death sentence for murder?
  • Does a weak or unalleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment in cases of premeditated attack?
  • Can the omission of the investigating officer to recover a light source from the crime scene be fatal to the prosecution's case when natural illumination circumstances exist?
  • Can a fine imposed upon conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code be legally equated with statutory compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajaib Khan vs Lal Khan and 3 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 439 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Taj Qamar and 3 others vs Opal Laboratories (Pvt.) Limited,through Director_Manager1995 PLC 24 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad, Etc. vs District Collector Khanewal, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 602 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Salahuddin and others1995 CLC 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Mst. Zaitooney and another1995 PLD Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02
  revisional jurisdictionrejection of plaintbar of suitdiscretionary reliefjurisdictional errorspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the rejection of the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court had rejected the plaint on the ground that the petitioner's subsequent suit for recovery of money was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as his earlier suit for specific performance of a marriage contract, based on the same cause of action, had already been dismissed. The lower appellate court upheld this rejection. The Peshawar High Court examined the scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is strictly confined to matters involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise, or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, and cannot be invoked to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact that do not affect jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised unless grave injustice or hardship is shown. Finding no jurisdictional error or grave injustice, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked solely to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court exercise its discretionary revisional jurisdiction to correct an irregularity?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a jurisdictional error reviewable in revision if the lower courts had the authority to decide the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Ayub and another1995 CLC 899 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Auditor-General of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 752 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
• Taj Masih vs Personnel/Factory Manager, Packages Ltd., Lahore1995 PLC 590 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-13Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-09Read full judgment →
• Taj Company Limited. vs Collector of Customs and others.PTCL 1995 CL. 231 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Tahir John Masih vs The State1997 MLD 1904 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Tahir Javed and others vs Abdul Razzaq and others1995 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31
  private complaintsummoning orderrecording of evidencejudicial mindCode of Criminal ProcedureMagistratecriminal trialillegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment consolidates three criminal petitions challenging summoning orders issued by Magistrates in private complaint cases. The core legal question concerns whether a Magistrate may delegate the recording of evidence and the drafting of summoning orders to a Reader or Clerk. The Court held that the provisions of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically Sections 354 to 357, are mandatory. These provisions require a Magistrate to record evidence in their own hand or, for recorded reasons, under their dictation and in their presence to ensure the continuous application of a judicial mind. The Court found that the Magistrates in these cases failed to comply with these mandatory requirements, rendering the summoning orders illegal and without lawful authority. The principle laid down is that the delegation of judicial functions—specifically the recording of evidence—to subordinates is an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the summoning orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Sections 354 to 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory regarding the recording of evidence by a Magistrate?
  • Can a Magistrate delegate the recording of evidence and the drafting of a summoning order to a Reader or Clerk?
  • Is the failure of a Magistrate to record evidence in their own hand or under their dictation a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a Magistrate to personally record evidence in a criminal case indicate a lack of application of judicial mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain Malik vs Mst. Najma Rafi1995 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-15
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentregistered sale deedunregistered agreement to sellsuccessor-in-interestres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, by the respondent against the petitioner's father, alleging default in rent payment and personal bona fide need. The petitioner contested the application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting ownership based on an unregistered agreement to sell. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could deny the landlord-tenant relationship despite a registered sale deed in favor of the respondent and a prior judicial finding confirming the relationship. The Supreme Court held that the registered sale deed took precedence over the petitioner's unregistered agreement to sell. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the respondent, as the successor-in-interest, was entitled to rent following the issuance of a notice under section 18 of the Ordinance. The Court concluded that the petitioner's failure to pay rent rendered him liable for eviction, finding no misreading of evidence by the High Court. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a registered sale deed take precedence over a prior unregistered agreement to sell in the context of a landlord-tenant dispute?
  • Is a tenant liable for eviction for failing to pay rent to a successor-in-interest landlord after receiving notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a tenant deny the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when that relationship has been established by a prior judicial order?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Alias Sain Lodhi vs The State1995 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali Etc. vs Akbar Ali & CompanyK.L.R.1997 Civil Cases 134 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 393 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-12Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 403 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-19Read full judgment →
• Taher Shaikha vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Local1995 MLD 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ta RR) Kurd vs Returning Officer A.C. Dhodar and others1995 CLC 1465 · Election Tribunal · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Syeda Shahida Tasleem vs The Province of Punjab and others1995 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15
  constitutional petitionminor mineralsauction of lease rightsnegotiation with bidderslocus poenitentiaeadministrative lawmala fidesre-auction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the orders of the Licencing Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority regarding the grant of excavation lease rights for minor minerals. Following an initial auction, the Licencing Authority had initiated negotiations under Rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. After the petitioners' predecessor died during negotiations, the Authority ordered a re-auction on 11-5-1992 and issued notices accordingly. However, during the pendency of an appeal by respondent No. 5, the Licencing Authority unilaterally withdrew its re-auction order without stating reasons and granted the lease rights to respondent No. 5 via private negotiations for Rs. 7,00,000, ignoring a higher offer of Rs. 12,00,000 and excluding the legal heirs and other bidders.

  The High Court held that the Licencing Authority acted beyond its powers in withdrawing an order that had already taken effect. Furthermore, conducting negotiations exclusively with one bidder without notice to other contestants violated Rule 15 and demonstrated mala fides. The impugned orders were declared void, and a re-auction was directed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensing authority lawfully withdraw an order for re-auction after it has already taken effect and been acted upon by issuing notices to the parties?
  • Is an administrative order recalling a previous order legally sustainable if it fails to disclose any reasons for such withdrawal?
  • Whether lease rights can be validly granted under Rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 through negotiations conducted exclusively with one bidder to the exclusion and without notice of other participating bidders or their legal heirs?
  • Does the acceptance of a lower bid through private negotiations constitute a violation of law and smack of mala fides when a significantly higher offer is on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin Qadri and anothers vs The Registrar, Cooperative1995 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin Qadri And Another vs The Registrar, Cooperative1995 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahoor-Ul-Hassan Naqvi vs Director, Administration, North, Punjab Highway Department, Lahore and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 557 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Ali and others vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh1995 PLC (C.S.) 882 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Yusuf Ali Shah vs Mst. Rehmat Elahi1995 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahzib-Ul-Hasan Zaidi vs The State1995 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahzib Ul Hasan Zaidi vs The State1995 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Sikandar Ali and anothers vs Azhar and 6 others1995 CLC 493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Shaukat Hussain vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 21 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Ahmed Imam vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi1995 PLC 170 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Hussain Zaidi vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab,Agriculture Department, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 765 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-03-14
  ad hoc appointmenttermination of servicecivil servantregular appointmentservice tribunalback benefitsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Research Officer appointed on an ad hoc basis, challenged the termination of his services by the Secretary, Agriculture Department. The core legal question was whether the appellant's ad hoc appointment could be terminated arbitrarily without the appointment of a regularly selected incumbent, and whether the termination order was legally sustainable without providing reasons or notice. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, an ad hoc appointment remains valid until a regularly selected candidate is appointed to the post. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a Supreme Court judgment mandated the wholesale termination of all ad hoc employees, clarifying that such judgments serve as guidelines for future recruitment rather than authorizing the summary removal of existing incumbents without due process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the termination order, ruling that the appellant was entitled to continue in service until a regular replacement was appointed. The key principle established is that ad hoc appointments governed by statute cannot be terminated prematurely unless the specific condition for termination—the arrival of a regular appointee—has been met.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ad hoc appointment be terminated before a regularly selected incumbent is appointed to the post?
  • Does a policy decision by a Chief Minister regarding ad hoc employees automatically terminate the services of individual employees without a specific order from the competent authority?
  • Is an administrative authority required to provide reasons for the termination of an ad hoc employee's services?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah and anothers vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah1995 MLD 563 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah And Another vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah And Another1995 MLD 563 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Riffat Askari vs The State through the Special Prosecutor, Appointed under Section 17 of the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996 And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Mushtaq Ahmed vs Plasticrafters (Pvt)Ltd., Karachi1995 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Murad Ali Shah vs The Chief Election Commissioner of PAKISTANAnd 15 Other1995 MLD 1326 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Murad Ali Shah vs The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan1995 MLD 1326 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Munir Hussain Shah vs Secretary, Livestock Dairy and Development Department, Government of the Punjab and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 943 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  pensionary benefitscivil servantsuperannuationwithholding of pensionstatutory interpretationservice lawdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a retired Director of the Livestock and Dairy Development Department, challenged the withholding of Rs. 2,56,101.99 from his pensionary benefits by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the authorities could lawfully withhold pension amounts from a retired civil servant absent a penalty of dismissal or removal from service. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that under Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant has an indefeasible right to receive pension upon retirement. The Tribunal determined that pension can only be withheld under the specific conditions prescribed in Section 18(3), namely, dismissal or removal from service for disciplinary reasons. Since the appellant had not faced such penalties, the withholding of his pension was deemed illegal. The Tribunal further clarified that statutory provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 take precedence over any conflicting administrative rules, such as Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted full pensionary benefits effective from his date of retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can pensionary benefits be withheld from a civil servant in the absence of dismissal or removal from service?
  • Does the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 prevail over the Pension Rules regarding the withholding of pension?
  • Under what specific conditions is the government authorized to withhold a civil servant's pension under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Taqi Shah vs Sadaqat Ali Khan1995 MLD 211 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Shah vs Proprietor F.K. Foundry Ltd., Shahdara, Lahore1995 PLC 565 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Nadeem Abbas Alias Pappoo Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 587 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Anwar Begum1995 MLD 682 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Shah anothers vs Member, Board of Revenue and 4 others1995 CLC 583 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14
  promissory estoppelState land allotmentconstitutional petitiongovernment policyadministrative lawevacuee propertyMartial Law Administrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order issued by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, which withdrew previous directives for the allotment of State land to the petitioner as a reward for his services in unearthing a major fraud involving evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue possessed the authority to unilaterally withdraw a policy decision regarding land transfer that had been approved by the Governor/Martial Law Administrator and acted upon by subordinate authorities. The Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It determined that the Board of Revenue could not overrule or ignore the policy decision made by the Chief Executive, which had already crystallized into a promise. The Court emphasized that subordinate functionaries are bound to obey the orders of the Chief Executive, which are protected under the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ruling that the government could not withdraw from a promise once valuable rights had accrued to the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents were directed to finalize the land transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subordinate government functionary unilaterally withdraw a policy decision approved by the Chief Executive?
  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply to the government when it has promised to transfer State land as a reward?
  • Are orders issued by a Martial Law Administrator protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Shah vs The State1995 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-12
  criminal appealmurdercommon objectinterested witnessesocular accountrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal and maintaining his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case involved a double murder arising from a previous enmity and blood feud, supported by ocular testimony and recovery of weapon matching a crime empty. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's co-accused, who faced the same allegations and evidence, had already been acquitted by this Court in a connected appeal. Examining the record, the Court found that the eyewitnesses were closely related and interested, their presence at the spot was doubtful, and the recovery evidence was unreliable due to delayed transmission of crime empties and weapons to the forensic laboratory. Holding that the appellant's case was indistinguishable from that of his acquitted co-accused, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant is entitled to acquittal when his case is indistinguishable from that of co-accused who have already been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Whether the testimony of closely related eyewitnesses can be relied upon when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful and they fail to give a reasonable explanation for their presence?
  • Whether a Fire-Arm Expert's report connecting a weapon with a crime empty loses its evidentiary value due to delayed transmission of the items to the forensic laboratory and missing malkhana deposit dates?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Awais Shibli vs The State1995 MLD 511 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19
  quashment of criminal proceedingsinherent jurisdictionCode of Criminal ProcedureArms Ordinanceabuse of processjoint possessionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from a case registered under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether an accused must first exhaust the remedy of seeking acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The Court held that while it is generally appropriate to approach the trial court first, this is not a mandatory prerequisite. Where the F.I.R. itself, taken at face value, fails to establish a case that could lead to a conviction—such as when incriminating articles are recovered from a place of joint possession rather than the exclusive custody of the accused—the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to prevent an abuse of the court's process. The principle established is that quashment is permissible without prior application to the trial court if the prosecution's allegations, even if proven, cannot legally sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be filed without first seeking acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to quash criminal proceedings if the F.I.R. fails to establish a prima facie case for conviction?
  • Is the recovery of incriminating articles from a place of joint possession sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Aslam vs Ivadditional District Judge, Karachi1997 MLD 1842 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Arif vs Mehmood Shah and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah and 4 others vs Manager, Pervaiz Textile1995 PLC 530 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Aleemuddin vs Secretary-General, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 258 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Akram Shah vs Directorgeneral, Headquarters1995 CLC 476 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →