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.
- Syed Muhammad Akram Shah vs Directorgeneral HQ, Special1995 CLC 118 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Mohsin Ali Shah vs The S.H.O., Police Station Garh Maharaja1995 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Syed Mohibullah Shah vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 1015 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
- Syed Miskieen Shah vs Sajjid Hussain and 2 others1995 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail in a case involving charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal concern was the propriety of releasing a female accused on bail when the surety bonds were furnished by the very person with whom she was alleged to have committed Zina, potentially allowing them to cohabit during the pendency of the proceedings. The Supreme Court examined whether such an arrangement, if the defense plea of valid Nikah failed, would create an untenable legal and social situation. To ensure the safety of the accused and to prevent the court from facilitating a situation that might be criticized if a conviction followed, the Supreme Court, with the consent of both parties, modified the impugned order. The Court directed that the accused be lodged in Darul-Aman, Abbottabad, rather than being released into the custody of the co-accused, and ordered the completion of the investigation and submission of an interim report under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 within one month.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court order an accused to be lodged in Darul-Aman as a condition of bail to ensure safety and prevent potential abuse of the bail process?
- Is it appropriate for a court to allow an accused person in a Zina case to be released on bail furnished by the co-accused with whom they are alleged to have committed the offense?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to direct the completion of an investigation and the submission of an interim report within a specified timeframe?
- Syed Mehboob Shah vs The State1995 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Syed Mehboob Shah, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed his application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of murder and firing. The petitioner was accused of firing at the complainant and others, resulting in a fatality. The petitioner argued that he had been found innocent during investigations by three different agencies and that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a distinct role, unlike the co-accused whose cases were not identical. The Court noted that the alleged offence was punishable by death or life imprisonment. Emphasizing that the High Court had already directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe and granted the petitioner liberty to renew his bail application if the trial remained pending, the Supreme Court held that no grounds existed to interfere with the High Court's order. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the release of a co-accused on bail automatically entitle another accused to bail when their roles are not identical?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted when the High Court has already directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a fixed period?
- Is bail appropriate for an accused specifically named in the F.I.R. for an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment?
- Syed Masood Hashmi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs The S.H.O., Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs Syed Fayyaz Mahmood1995 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings in a complaint case pending under sections 406 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be quashed when they arose out of a civil dispute (breach of contract) and were initiated with mala fide intent to harass the accused and coerce a settlement in pending civil litigation. The Lahore High Court held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence and that continuing criminal proceedings under such circumstances constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court established the principle that while civil and criminal proceedings can simultaneously exist, a criminal complaint manifestly tainted by malice, arising from a civil dispute, and lacking essential ingredients of a criminal offence is liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
- Does a mere breach of an agreement to sell give rise to criminal prosecution for criminal breach of trust or criminal intimidation?
- What are the powers of a trial Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before recording evidence?
- Can a criminal complaint filed as a counter-blast to pressure an accused in pending civil litigation be maintained?
- Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs (Syed) Fayyaz MahmoodK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 481 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Syed Makadar Hussain Shah vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1995 CLC 1594 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from disciplinary action taken by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against the appellant for alleged impersonation during an examination. The appellant challenged his disqualification, arguing that he was denied a fair hearing and that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary committee’s failure to provide the appellant with the incriminating material used against him and the lack of proof regarding a personal hearing invalidated the penalty. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the proceedings were flawed. The Court ruled that while domestic tribunals are not bound by strict judicial formalities, they must adhere to essential principles of natural justice. This requires informing the accused of the specific allegations and the evidence supporting them, allowing them to controvert such material. Because the Board failed to demonstrate that a personal hearing occurred or that the appellant was apprised of the evidence against him, the disqualification order was declared without lawful authority. The Board was permitted to initiate de novo proceedings in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does a domestic tribunal, such as an educational board, have to follow strict judicial formalities when conducting disciplinary proceedings?
- What are the essential requirements of natural justice when a disciplinary body proceeds against a student for alleged examination malpractice?
- Is a disciplinary authority required to disclose the incriminating material against an accused person to satisfy the requirements of natural justice?
- Can a disciplinary authority rely on conjecture or suspicion to impose a penalty in the absence of valid proof?
- Syed Mahmud Ali vs Baqar Mehdi Rizvi and 3 others1995 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Khushnood Hussain vs Chief Secretary, Chairman, Provincial1995 PLC (C.S.) 1145 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Khasiat Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 505 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Jaffer Raza Naqvi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 887 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Imran Raza Zaidi vs Government of Punjab and 2 others1995 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose in the context of a pending appeal where the petitioner sought a stay order, which had previously been refused upon the grant of leave. During the proceedings, counsel for both parties reached a consensus that the retention of the original record by the Supreme Court was unnecessary, as the paper books were prepared and relevant documents could be incorporated. Consequently, the Court directed that the record be transmitted back to the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the parties requested an out-of-turn hearing for the main appeal. Given that the primary relief sought in the application—the stay—was no longer relevant or required in light of the parties' agreement to expedite the hearing of the main appeal, the Court dismissed the application as having become infructuous.
Questions settled- Can a miscellaneous application for a stay order be dismissed as infructuous when the parties agree to an expedited hearing of the main appeal?
- Is it permissible for the Supreme Court to direct the transmission of the record to the Service Tribunal when paper books are ready?
- Syed Ikhlaq Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah and anothers vs Government of Pakistan1995 SCMR 809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had declined the petitioners' miscellaneous applications alleging non-compliance with a previous Tribunal order. The petitioners, having previously secured a remand order from the Tribunal for reconsideration of their promotion cases, alleged that the authorities failed to comply by citing a lack of vacancies as the reason for denying promotion. The petitioners contended that their juniors had been promoted, bypassing them without justification, and that the Tribunal's remand order required an examination of whether this bypassing was factually justified. They argued that the respondents' plea of 'no vacancy' effectively negated the Tribunal's earlier judgment and that the Tribunal failed to address this aspect in its subsequent order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate the petitioners' grievance regarding being bypassed for promotion and whether the respondents' reliance on the lack of vacancies was a valid compliance with the Tribunal's remand directions.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of 'no vacancy' constitutes valid compliance with a Tribunal's order to reconsider promotion cases?
- Does a Tribunal's failure to address the specific grievance of being bypassed for promotion in a remand proceeding warrant Supreme Court intervention?
- Can authorities cite a lack of vacancies to deny promotion after a Tribunal has remanded the case for reconsideration of promotion eligibility?
- Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah and another vs Government of Pakistan1995 PLC (C.S.) 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed petitions for leave to appeal against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal which declined their miscellaneous petitions. The miscellaneous petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's earlier judgment that had remanded their cases to the authority for reconsideration of promotion after their appeals were disposed of. The grievance was that their juniors had been promoted by bypassing them without justifiable reason, and the respondents had refused promotion on the ground of the absence of vacancies. The Supreme Court considered the arguments that the respondents' plea regarding the lack of vacancies negated the Tribunal's remand judgment and that the Tribunal failed to examine whether the petitioners were factually bypassed without justifiable reason. The Court held that these contentions raised substantial questions warranting examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that when a service appeal regarding supersession and promotion is remanded for reconsideration, the authorities cannot defeat the remand order on the mere plea of non-availability of vacancies without addressing the core grievance of unjustified bypassing.
Questions settled- Whether an authority can refuse promotion after a remand order on the ground of non-availability of vacancies?
- Does the failure of a service tribunal to consider whether an employee was bypassed without justifiable reason warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can the non-compliance of a tribunal's remand judgment be challenged through miscellaneous petitions?
- Syed Hassan Zaidi vs Mahboob Ali Khan1995 CLC 19 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Hassan Khan vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 5 others1995 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner to challenge his transfer order from Bannu back to his original place of posting in Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the transfer and cancellation orders passed by the competent authority in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent order cancelling the earlier transfer was passed by the competent authority without any lack of jurisdiction or established mala fides, and thus interference in constitutional jurisdiction was unwarranted. The Court concluded by refusing leave to appeal while observing that the petitioner may approach the Service Tribunal if available under the law. The key principle laid down is that transfer and posting orders passed by a competent authority without jurisdictional defect or proven mala fides are not amenable to interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an order cancelling a civil servant's transfer can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when passed by a competent authority?
- Does a transfer order passed without lack of authority warrant interference under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can a civil servant challenge a transfer cancellation order before the High Court on grounds of alleged mala fides without sufficient proof?
- Syed Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din Shah vs Government of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1998 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Fakhar Mahmood Gillani vs Abdul Ghafoor1995 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed an eviction petition filed by the landlord against the tenant for alleged default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the remission of rent via money order constitutes a valid tender under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and whether the tenant must prove the landlord's refusal to accept the payment. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the tenant was not a defaulter. The Court held that the explanation to Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, establishes that rent remitted by money order to the landlord’s correct address is deemed a valid tender. The Court clarified that the tenant’s responsibility is discharged upon the act of remitting the rent via money order; the tenant is not required to follow the postman or prove the landlord's refusal to accept the funds. Furthermore, official acts performed by postal authorities are entitled to a presumption of regularity.
Questions settled- Does the remission of rent via money order to a landlord constitute a valid tender of rent under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Is a tenant required to prove that a landlord refused to accept rent remitted via money order to establish a valid tender?
- What is the extent of a tenant's responsibility when remitting rent through a money order?
- Syed Bashiruddin alias Rasheed and anothers vs Karachi Development1995 PLD Karachi 175 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Aslam Ali, Sabzwari Superintending Engineer, Local Govt. & RuralK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Aslam Ali Sabzwari vs Govt. of the Punjab Local Govt. and RuralK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 555 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Anwar Mahmood vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 8 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 391 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs MR. Justice Muhammad Ilyas, Acting Chief1995 MLD 1938 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas Acting1995 MLD 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged the appointment of the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court as the Acting Governor of the Punjab following the death of the incumbent Governor, on the grounds that the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 did not visualize acting appointments for permanent vacancies caused by death, and that such an appointment violated the principle of separation of the judiciary from the executive. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions in limine, holding that the unexpected death of a sitting Governor constitutes a contingency covered under Article 101(5) of the Constitution, empowering the President to make stop-gap arrangements for the discharge of gubernatorial functions. The Court ruled that constitutional provisions must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid a vacuum in executive authority, and that a temporary acting appointment of a judge does not breach the separation of powers as any qualified person may be appointed.
Questions settled- Whether the President of Pakistan has the lawful authority under Article 101(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to appoint an Acting Governor when a permanent vacancy occurs due to the death of a sitting Governor?
- Does the appointment of a sitting High Court judge or Acting Chief Justice as an Acting Governor violate the constitutional mandate requiring the separation of the judiciary from the executive?
- Can provisions of the Constitution relating to gubernatorial appointments be interpreted to preclude temporary stop-gap arrangements in unforeseen contingencies not explicitly detailed in Article 104?
- Does an Acting Governor appointed to fill a temporary vacancy qualify as a successor or predecessor under Articles 260 and 261 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Syed Akbar Ali Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-17Read full judgment →
- Syed Ahmed Ali Rizvi and anothers vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave challenged a High Court Single Judge's order recalling a previously granted bail to the appellants on the grounds that the relevant FIR (No. 46 of 1994) was registered in Rawalpindi and that the High Court Judge sitting at the Principal Seat in Lahore lacked territorial jurisdiction. The appellants were initially granted bail by a trial court in Lahore, but FIA authorities allegedly avoided releasing them and transferred them to Rawalpindi on an allegedly 'afterthought' second FIR. The High Court initially converted a habeas corpus petition into a bail petition and granted bail, but subsequently cancelled it on an application by the state. The Supreme Court held that administrative rules like the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules 1981 do not curtail or limit the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court Judge, who can exercise jurisdiction throughout the entire territorial limits of the High Court, including at the Principal Seat. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored/confirmed the appellants' bail.
Questions settled- Does administrative division of High Court Benches curtail the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court Judge sitting at the Principal Seat?
- Can a High Court Judge sitting at the Principal Seat grant bail in a matter originating within the territorial area of another Bench of the same High Court?
- Is a High Court justified in recalling bail on technical grounds of bench territoriality where the state's actions are found to be mala fide and intended to frustrate a court order?
- Syed Afzal Ahmed Hydri vs Chief Scientist and Scientific Advisor, Desto, Rawalpindi1995 PLC (C.S.) 1000 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Afzal Ahmed Hydari and anothers vs Secretary, Defence1995 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a discipline-wise seniority list and the underlying recruitment rules in the Defence Science and Technology Organization (DESTO). The core legal questions were whether the Government was competent to amend recruitment rules to introduce discipline-based seniority and whether such amendments violated Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, by allegedly harming the petitioners' promotion prospects. The Supreme Court held that the amendments were intra vires, noting that the Government possesses the authority to amend rules and that Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, does not mandate the maintenance of an overall seniority list to the exclusion of group-specific lists. The Court further held that the amendments were not mala fide and were intended to facilitate specialization. The principle laid down is that the Government has the power to amend service rules, and such amendments are valid provided they are not mala fide, even if they introduce discipline-wise seniority groupings.
Questions settled- Does Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 mandate the maintenance of an overall seniority list for all employees in a department?
- Is the Government competent to amend recruitment rules to introduce discipline-based seniority groupings for civil servants?
- Can service rules be challenged on the basis that they were changed to the detriment of an employee's promotion prospects if the change was not mala fide?
- Syed Abid Hussain vs M/s. National Construction Company (Pakistan)1995 PLC 84 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Rasool Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- Superintendent, Government Printing, Punjab, Lahore vs Hamid1995 PLC 588 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
- Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Lahore vs Zawar Ahmad1995 PLC 585 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sunny Flying Coach Service vs Government of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
- Sunble Zareen Khan vs M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines, Karachi through its1995 PLC 405 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Sultan vs Yara and others1995 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Sultan vs Yara And Other1995 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Sultan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 625 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction involving the complainant's wife. The core legal question before the court was whether, given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary record, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. The court observed that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon during the alleged incident. Furthermore, the court noted an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 22 days in lodging the First Information Report. Upon reviewing the record, the court determined that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in reporting an offence and the accused is not alleged to have been armed, bail may be granted if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure provisions.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of weapons in the possession of an accused during an alleged abduction influence the court's decision on bail?
- Sultan vs (Mst.) Janat Bibi, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 203 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
- Sultan Shah vs Muhammad Hussain1995 MLD 847 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-18Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad, Etc. vs Sajawal Khan, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 561 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mahmood Chandio and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 874 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- Sultan and others vs M.B.R. and others1997 MLD 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
- Sultan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 671 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ali vs Mst. Khatija Bai1995 CLC 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are cross-appeals arising from an order passed by the Rent Controller and Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East), fixing the fair rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 800 per month. The landlady challenged the effective date and quantum, seeking Rs. 1,200 per month, while the tenant contested the rate, arguing that the landlady had previously demanded an enhancement of Rs. 242 per month and raising various objections regarding the applicability of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the use of photostat copies of documents, and factors under section 8 of the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court examined whether a previous rent fixation by mutual compromise barred a fair rent application, the interpretation of section 9(2) regarding the 10 percent per annum increase limit, and the evidentiary value of documents. The Court held that a previous rent fixed by mutual agreement does not bar a subsequent application for fair rent under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that section 9(2) applies only where fair rent has already been fixed. The Court modified the Controller's order by reducing the fair rent to Rs. 600 per month, while maintaining the effective date. The key principles laid down are that the right to seek fair rent under section 8 is absolute, previous mutual agreements do not constitute fair rent unless specifically determined as such by a Controller, and section 9(2) is sub-servient to section 9(1) of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does a previous rent fixed by mutual agreement between a landlord and a tenant bar a subsequent application for the determination of fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether section 9(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, restricting rent increases to ten percent per annum, applies generally to all existing tenancies or only to cases where fair rent has already been fixed?
- Can a landlord claim an increase in rent exceeding ten percent per annum when no fair rent has previously been determined for the premises?
- Does the rule of evidence under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 apply to proceedings before Rent Controllers functioning under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Sultan Ahmed vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmed vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1995 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmed vs Ghulam Raza and 2 others1995 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of murder and theft charges. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence by rejecting the testimony of interested eye-witnesses and doubting the forensic recovery of crime weapons and empties. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal was based on a proper evaluation of the record. The Court affirmed that the testimony of interested and hostile witnesses requires strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the High Court correctly identified that the ocular version was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the range of fire and the number of shots. The Court also emphasized that the extended period crime empties remained in police custody before forensic examination rendered that evidence unreliable. Establishing the principle that an acquittal judgment should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or founded on artificial reasoning, the Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s decision to grant the respondents the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of interested and hostile witnesses require strong independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is not perverse or based on artificial reasoning?
- Does the extended retention of crime empties in police custody before forensic examination render such evidence unreliable?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the ocular version of the incident is contradicted by medical evidence regarding the range of fire?
- Sultan Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
- Sulleh Khan vs Subhan Khan and others1995 CLC 717 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1712 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs Nazar Muhammad1995 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit challenging two gift mutations attested in 1969 and 1979, which the petitioner alleged were fraudulent and ineffective against his rights, while also seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent. The core legal question was whether the gift mutations were valid, specifically focusing on the delivery of possession to the donee. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently found that the gifts were valid and that the respondent had been in possession of the land. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, noting that the petitioner's challenge arose only after the death of his daughter, who was married to the respondent. The Court held that once a gift is completed by the delivery of possession, it cannot be invalidated by subsequent disputes over the land's produce or allegations of forcible possession. The principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity and completion of a gift, supported by oral and documentary evidence, are not open to interference in the absence of misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Can a completed gift be challenged on the basis of subsequent disputes regarding the possession of the land's produce?
- Does the delivery of possession validate a gift mutation even if the donor later alleges forcible possession by the donee?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the validity of a gift subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Suleman vs Fateh Naseeb and others1995 P Cr. L J 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who, while exercising jurisdiction under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, deleted an offence under section 17(6)79 and remanded the case to the Illaqa Magistrate. The core legal questions were whether the police possess the authority to re-investigate a case after the submission of a challan and whether a trial court is justified in deleting an offence from the challan without recording evidence. The Court held that the police are not statutorily barred from re-investigating a case or submitting a subsequent report in supersession of an earlier one, even after a challan has been submitted. Furthermore, the Court held that a trial court lacks the jurisdiction to unilaterally delete an offence from a challan without conducting a full trial and recording evidence. The key principle laid down is that the investigation process is not limited by law, and a court must proceed with the trial based on the challan rather than prematurely deleting charges without evidentiary basis.
Questions settled- Is the police authorized to re-investigate a case and submit a fresh report after the submission of the initial challan?
- Does a trial court have the jurisdiction to delete an offence from a challan without recording evidence?
- Can a court cancel a police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on its own instance?
- Suleman Habibullah vs The Editor, Printer, Publisher, Reporter (Staff)1995 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
- Suleman Habibullah vs The Editor Daily Jang, Jang Publications I.I.K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 209 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
- Sui Southern Gas Co. Limited, Karachi through Industrial Relations1995 PLC 650 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Suhrab vs The State1995 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
- Sufi Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Badshah Begum and others1995 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the High Court quashing a criminal case registered under sections 452, 506, 448, 511, 148, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originating from F.I.R. No. 127 of 1986. The petition was barred by 423 days, and an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was filed for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit stating that the petitioner was not served in the High Court proceedings. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court is whether a criminal case relating to the same subject-matter as a pending civil suit can be completely quashed on the basis of a civil stay order or if it can only be stayed. The Supreme Court condoned the delay upon verifying that the petitioner was not properly served in the High Court proceedings and granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly quashed the criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal case relating to the same subject-matter as a pending civil suit can be quashed altogether or only stayed?
- Can delay in filing a petition be condoned when the petitioner was not served in the prior proceedings?
- Is a complainant entitled to a hearing before a criminal case arising from their F.I.R. is quashed?
- Subedar-Major Fazal Kareem vs Mst. Surayya Tabassum1995 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Subedar Zar Muhammad vs Wali Muhammad1995 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision in a property dispute concerning land allotment and revenue record entries. The core legal question involves the proper appraisal of evidence by the High Court regarding the existence and identity of a specific Khasra number in settlement and revenue records. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court properly appraised the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down relates to the necessity of a correct and thorough appraisal of revenue records, Jamabandis, and oral testimony of revenue officials when determining discrepancies in property identification.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has properly appraised the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgment regarding the existence of a disputed Khasra number?
- Subedar Major Fazal Kareem vs Mst. Surayya Tabassum1995 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Suba vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 538 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
- Sualeh Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Development AuthorityK.L.R. 1997Civil Cases 418 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-29Read full judgment →
- State vs Qaiser1995 MLD 535 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- State vs Ghulam Akbar Shah and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 177 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh, Karachi vs Farman Hussain and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard criminal appeals filed by the State against a High Court judgment that acquitted seven respondents previously convicted of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A/109, P.P.C. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value of child witnesses, the necessity and proper conduct of identification tests, and the scope of interference with acquittal judgments. The Court, by majority, set aside the High Court's acquittal for three respondents (Shoukat Ali Mughal, Ghulam Abbas, and Ameer Bux Umrani), convicting them to 14 years' R.I. and a fine, while upholding the acquittal of the remaining four. The judgment affirmed that child witness testimony, if found true, natural, and unshaken, can be relied upon, especially when corroborated. It also clarified that identification tests are crucial for strangers but may be dispensed with if witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the accused. Interference with an acquittal judgment is warranted only in exceptional cases of gross misreading of evidence leading to a miscarriage of justice or an impossible conclusion.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the solitary evidence of a child witness if corroborated?
- What is the evidentiary value of a child witness in a criminal trial?
- Is an identification test a legal requirement in all cases, or can it be dispensed with if eye-witnesses can identify the accused before the trial Court?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment by a High Court?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that ransom was actually demanded to establish an offence under Section 365-A, P.P.C.?
- State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vs Aslam Khan1995 MLD 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- State Through Advocate General, N. W.F.P., Peshawar vs Aslam Khan1995 MLD 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Samad Commercial Complex1995 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs Ch. Muhamamd Akhtar and others1995 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State Bank of Pakistan filed a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that had set aside the dismissal of an employee, Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, and directed his reinstatement with full back benefits. The respondent had been dismissed following departmental proceedings for the misappropriation of funds. His initial grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and subsequent appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal were both dismissed. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, intervened and ordered reinstatement. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by substituting its own decision for that of the competent authority without properly considering the inquiry officer's report. Furthermore, the petitioner raised a legal question regarding whether the bank's employees are governed by the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations and Standing Orders or the Wage Commission Award. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court acted within its lawful authority in setting aside the departmental orders and directing reinstatement, effectively replacing the competent authority's decision with its own.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, can substitute its own decision for that of the competent authority regarding the dismissal of an employee?
- Whether the employees of the State Bank of Pakistan are governed by the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations and Standing Orders or the Wage Commission Award?
- State Bank of Pakistan through Chief Manager vs Pervez Iqbal Bhatti, Proprietor, Former Bhatti Trading Company, Peshawar and another1995 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Star Flour Mills vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
- Standard Batteries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 1185 [211 I T R 444] · Supreme Court of India · 1994-04-22Read full judgment →
- Sozul and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1358 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Soofi Muhammad Shafi Baig vs Robkareadalt through State1995 P Cr. L J 399 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
- Soneri Bank Limited through Mian Abdul Wajid, Evp And Muhammad Ashfaq Chishti, VP vs Raja Weaving Mills Limited And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 742 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court disposing of a writ petition following a Full Bench decision that declared certain provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 as ultra vires. The appellant bank had previously secured a money decree from the Banking Tribunal against the respondent. The respondent challenged the decree through a writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court Division Bench relying on the Full Bench judgment without issuing notice to the appellant and without considering whether past and closed transactions were protected. The Supreme Court heard the appeal, noted that the respondent's counsel conceded that the decree fell within the protective scope of paragraph 12 of the Full Bench judgment as a past and closed transaction, and that the appellant had not been served with notice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment and decree passed by a Banking Tribunal prior to a declaration of unconstitutionality is protected as a past and closed transaction?
- Can a High Court dispose of a constitutional petition affecting a decree-holder without serving notice on the appellant?
- Sohail Sardar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 648 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
- Sohail Masood Ansari vs The State1997 MLD 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
- Sohail Jan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 83 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
- Sohail Hameed, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad1995 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by a practicing advocate challenging the validity of the Enforcement of Shariah Act (Act X of 1991) on the ground that it violates his fundamental right to profess, practise, and propagate his religion under Article 20 of the Constitution. The core legal question is whether Section 3 of the Enforcement of Shariah Act 1991 infringes upon the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 20 of the Constitution. The Court holds that the petition is misconceived, noting that the petitioner failed to point out any specific provision of the impugned Act that impedes his religious freedom, and that his grievance regarding interest-bearing loans from the House Building Finance Corporation does not stem from Section 3 of the Act. The petition is accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that a legislative enactment cannot be struck down as violative of fundamental rights without demonstrating a direct and concrete infringement.
Questions settled- Does the Enforcement of Shariah Act 1991 violate the fundamental right to profess, practise and propagate religion under Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a statute be declared void on the ground that it prevents a citizen from obtaining an interest-free loan from a financial corporation?
- Sohail And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 39 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Sohail Ahmed vs The State1995 SCMR 847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction for murder and attempted murder while acquitting his four co-accused. The petitioner was originally sentenced to death by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner's conviction can be sustained based solely on ocular testimony when the same evidence was rejected by the lower courts regarding the co-accused, and when the prosecution's evidence regarding motive was disbelieved. The petitioner contends that the eye-witnesses were unreliable and that his conviction requires independent corroboration, which is absent from the record. Upon examination, the Supreme Court found that the contentions raised regarding the reliability of the ocular testimony and the lack of corroboration warranted further judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the conviction suffers from serious legal infirmity due to the partial rejection of the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when that same testimony has been rejected by the courts regarding co-accused persons?
- Does the rejection of prosecution evidence regarding motive and co-accused necessitate independent corroboration for the remaining accused's conviction?
- Is leave to appeal warranted when the conviction is based on evidence found unreliable in other material aspects?
- Sohail Ahmed and 6 others vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought the quashment of an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which had set aside their acquittal by a Judicial Magistrate and remanded the case for retrial due to non-compliance with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution is entitled to seek a retrial based on procedural irregularities that do not prejudice the accused, and whether such irregularities justify setting aside an acquittal. The High Court held that the remand order was improper. It established that Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is designed for the benefit of the accused; thus, procedural irregularities not causing prejudice to the accused are curable under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court emphasized that the prosecution cannot claim retrial based on procedural defects intended to protect the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that ordering a retrial after a protracted period, considering the ordeal already suffered by the accused, was unjustified. Consequently, the court set aside the remand order and restored the original acquittal.
Questions settled- Can the prosecution seek a retrial based on procedural irregularities that do not prejudice the accused?
- Is a failure to properly examine an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a ground for the prosecution to demand a retrial?
- Does Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the curing of procedural irregularities that do not cause prejudice to the accused?
- Should an appellate court consider the duration of a protracted trial when deciding whether to order a retrial?
- Smt. Veena Devi Singhania vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1995 PTD 1105 20 I T R 967 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Smt. Snehlata R. Parikh vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1995 PTD 826 · Gujarat High Court · 1993-08-24Read full judgment →
- Smith (Inspector of Taxes) vs Abott and 3 others1995 PTD 888 1 WLR 1114 · Court of Appeals · -Read full judgment →
- Slkandar vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 412 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- Siyano vs The State1995 MLD 374 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-19Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs Member Federal Land Commission And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
- Sir E.H. Jaffar and Sons Ltd. vs Sultan Karam Ali and others1995 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh setting aside an ejectment order granted by the Rent Controller against the respondents. The ejectment was sought on grounds of default in rent payment and subletting. The Rent Controller had found the respondents in default for failing to pay rent in advance as per the tenancy agreement. The High Court reversed this, holding that the parties had modified the mode of payment through a practice of billing, thereby entitling the tenants to a statutory grace period during which no default occurred. The Supreme Court agreed that no default in rent payment was committed due to the modified practice and applicability of the grace period. However, regarding the ground of subletting, the Supreme Court found that the original tenant had transferred his shares in the company and parted with possession of the premises to a third party without the landlord's written consent or knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the ground of subletting, setting aside the High Court's judgment on that issue, and granted the respondents one year to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord and tenant can modify the mode of rent payment agreed in a tenancy agreement through their subsequent course of conduct?
- Is a tenant considered a defaulter in rent payment if a statutory grace period covers the delay resulting from a modified billing practice?
- Does the transfer of shares in a company by a tenant constitute subletting or parting with possession of the rented premises without the landlord's consent?
- Sindh Flour Milling Corporation vs M/s. Punjab Roller Flour Mills1995 CLC 433 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
- Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution vs M/s. Pakistan Tobacco1995 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside the withdrawal of suspension orders concerning the application of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to the respondent establishment. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to a prior hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem before the government withdrew administrative suspension orders that had previously deferred the application of the Ordinance to their establishment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Provincial Government was not legally required to provide a show-cause notice or a hearing to an establishment before issuing a notification under Section 1(3) of the Ordinance to extend its provisions. Consequently, the Court determined that the withdrawal of administrative suspension orders—which lacked a statutory basis—did not create a vested right or benefit necessitating the application of the audi alteram partem principle. The Court reaffirmed that administrative deferments do not confer procedural rights that override the government's authority to enforce statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Is the Provincial Government required to provide a show-cause notice to an establishment before issuing a notification under Section 1(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- Does the withdrawal of an administrative suspension order, which was not based on any statutory provision, trigger the requirement of a prior hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem?
- Can an establishment claim a vested right based on an administrative suspension order that lacks a basis in the governing statute?
- Tariq Kurd vs Returning Officer, A.C. Dhadar1995 CLC 820 · Election Tribunal · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition arose from the general elections of the Provincial Assembly from constituency PB-24 Bolan-I (Kachi), where the petitioner, Tariq Kurd, challenged the declaration of respondent No. 13, Mir Lashkri Raisani, as the successful candidate. The core legal questions involved the validity and counting of challenged votes and postal ballot papers that allegedly suffered from defects, including not being received through the post and lacking proper declarations in Form VIII. The Election Tribunal held that the requirements concerning officials conducting elections are generally directory rather than mandatory, and that minor lapses by officials or the receipt of postal ballots by hand (to avoid postal delays) do not invalidate the franchise of voters who otherwise legitimately cast their votes. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a party cannot selectively challenge common defects in postal ballots that apply equally to both sides. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed, upholding the returned candidate's victory.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of election laws requiring postal ballots to be sent through the post are directory or mandatory?
- Can postal ballot papers delivered by hand to the Returning Officer be counted in the final results?
- Whether an election petitioner can challenge defects in postal ballots that apply equally to the votes cast in favor of the petitioner?
- What is the effect of failing to raise specific objections regarding challenged votes during the consolidation of results before the Returning Officer?
- Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation through Managing Director, Karachi and 2 others vs Jamaluddin1995 PLC 629 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
- Sikkandar A. Karim vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 73 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two bail applications filed by an accused facing charges under the Customs Act, 1969 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, arising from allegations of over-invoicing, under-invoicing, and smuggling of auto parts. The core legal questions addressed were whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences and whether the alleged mala fide political motivation behind the arrest justified bail. The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that bail is a concession, not a right, in non-bailable offences where reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed the crime. The court established that offences affecting the society at large, such as smuggling and corruption causing national economic loss, must be treated differently from those affecting only individuals. Furthermore, the court ruled that allegations of mala fide are questions of fact to be determined at trial, not at the bail stage. The judgment emphasizes that courts must perform a tentative assessment of evidence without prejudice to the trial, and that bail should not be granted where prima facie evidence connects the accused to the offence.
Questions settled- Does an allegation of mala fide in a criminal case automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the grant of bail in non-bailable offences a matter of right or a judicial concession?
- Should courts distinguish between offences affecting individuals and those affecting society at large when considering bail?
- Can a High Court judge rely on the principle of consistency to grant bail if a trial court has granted bail to co-accused in the same case?
- Sikandar Khan and anothers vs Ishaqzai and 3 others1995 CLC 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-07Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others1995 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondents on charges of murder and abetment. The core legal question involved the standard of review and the principles to be applied by an appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the reasons for acquittal recorded by the courts below—specifically regarding the absence of weapon corroboration and discrepancies in the testimony of abetment witnesses—were supported by the evidence on record and were neither perverse nor artificial. The key principles laid down reiterate that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the conclusions of the lower court are such that no reasonable person could conceivably reach them, or unless the judgment is perverse and based on ridiculous reasoning, maintaining the double presumption of innocence.
Questions settled- What are the well-settled principles to be kept in view while dealing with an appeal against acquittal?
- Does the recovery of all crime empties from the weapon of only one co-accused exclude the participation of another accused alleged to have fired shots?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal?