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.

• Muhammad Shaukat Arain vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Home Secretary, Islamabad and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 606 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State and another1995 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07
  criminal revisionissuance of processdischarged accusedtrial court powersinvestigationfinality of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a criminal revision petition in limine. The petitioner, having been discharged during the investigation of an FIR registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, contested the trial court's subsequent decision to issue process against him. The core legal questions were whether a trial court possesses the authority to summon an accused person who was previously discharged during the investigation, and whether an order of discharge constitutes an administrative or judicial act that precludes further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the trial court retains the power to summon a discharged person if material on the record justifies such action. Furthermore, the Court noted that a previous High Court order allowing the complainant to move the trial court afresh had attained finality as it was not challenged by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirming that the trial court's power to issue process remains intact despite an initial discharge during the investigation phase.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to issue process against an accused person who was previously discharged during the investigation stage?
  • Can a trial court summon a discharged accused if new material on the record justifies such action?
  • Does an order of the High Court allowing a complainant to move the trial court afresh attain finality if not challenged by the affected party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Superintendent District Jail, Multan, Etc.K.L.R 1997 Shariat Cases 265 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1995 PLC 612 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Niamat Ali And Another1995 MLD 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Amjad And Other1995 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs MUHAMIvIAD Amjad and others1995 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Ghulam Ali1995 MLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30
  civil revisioncondonation of delaystriking off defenceremand of casesufficient causeunrefuted affidavitlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment setting aside a trial court's decree and remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The petitioner had filed a declaration suit regarding a mutation, in which the trial court struck off the respondent's defence and decreed the suit after the respondent failed to appear. The appellate court condoned a five-day delay in filing the appeal based on an unchallenged medical affidavit regarding the respondent's illness and remanded the matter. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in striking off the defence within a short timeframe when compared to the prolonged indulgences granted to the plaintiff, and noted that Order IX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not empower a court to strike off a defence in such circumstances. Furthermore, the High Court affirmed that the lower appellate court was fully justified in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 given that the medical affidavit and cause of delay went unrefuted by any counter-affidavit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the power under Order 9, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to strike off the defence of a defendant who fails to appear?
  • Whether the delay in filing an appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the appellant's affidavit explaining sickness and supported by a medical certificate remains unrefuted by a counter-affidavit?
  • Is an appellate court justified in setting aside an ex parte or summary decree and remanding the suit for fresh decision when the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by prematurely closing the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Toor vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary,Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control Division, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16
  service lawreduction in rankmisconductdepartmental inquiryparity of treatmentleave to appealnarcotics control board
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the reduction in rank of the petitioner, an Inspector in the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, from BPS-14 to BPS-11. The petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and inefficiency following a departmental inquiry, which established his close association with a known drug dealer, his attempts to influence the investigation, and his involvement in the theft and sale of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief based on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused, Amjad Pervaiz Butt, had been reinstated by the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused, noting that the co-accused was not exonerated but merely had his penalty modified, and that the petitioner failed to raise procedural objections regarding the bench composition before the Tribunal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that departmental findings supported by evidence regarding misconduct warrant no interference, and that parity of treatment cannot be claimed where factual circumstances differ.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim parity of treatment with a co-accused if the factual circumstances of their respective cases are distinguishable?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to challenge the composition of a bench before the Supreme Court if no such objection was raised before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the reinstatement of a co-accused by a Service Tribunal automatically entitle another employee charged with similar misconduct to the same relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Toor vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control Division, Islamabad and 3 others1995 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsreduction in rankmisconductdepartmental inquiryleave to appealdiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the reduction in rank of the petitioner, an Inspector in the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, from BPS-14 to BPS-11. The disciplinary action followed findings of misconduct and inefficiency, specifically regarding the petitioner's alleged association with a known drug dealer, interference in police investigations, and involvement in the theft and sale of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief on the grounds of discriminatory treatment, given that a co-accused colleague had been reinstated by the Tribunal in a separate proceeding. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment. The Court observed that the charges against the petitioner were distinguishable from those of the co-accused and noted that the co-accused had not been fully exonerated but merely reinstated with a penalty. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that disciplinary outcomes based on distinct factual findings do not constitute discriminatory treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reinstatement of a co-accused in a separate disciplinary proceeding automatically entitle another employee facing similar charges to the same relief?
  • Can a disciplinary order be challenged on the basis of discrimination if the charges against the petitioner and the co-accused are factually distinguishable?
  • Is a failure to raise an objection regarding the composition of the bench before the Tribunal a bar to raising it in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 593 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-09
  triple murderdeath sentence commutationgrave and sudden provocationbenefit of doubtocular evidencemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to five appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge for the triple murder of Mokha, his son Nazar Muhammad, and Mst. Saleh Bibi, and for the murderous assault on a minor. The appellants challenged the prosecution's evidence, alleging false implication due to enmity. The Lahore High Court examined the ocular evidence and the medical reports, noting discrepancies regarding the specific roles attributed to certain accused. Consequently, the court acquitted two appellants, Asghar and Zulfiqar, granting them the benefit of doubt. Regarding the remaining three appellants, the court upheld their convictions, finding the prosecution's case established. Crucially, the court addressed the quantum of sentence, ruling that the triple murder, while heinous, was committed under the influence of grave and sustained provocation stemming from the deceased's abduction of a married woman, which caused significant family disgrace. Applying established precedents, the court held that this mitigating circumstance justified commuting the death sentences to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that the penalty of death was not warranted in these specific circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abduction of a married woman and subsequent elopement constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence in a murder case?
  • Can an appellate court grant the benefit of doubt to specific co-accused when ocular testimony contains discrepancies regarding their individual roles?
  • Is the presence of an interested witness at the scene of the crime sufficient to discard their testimony if their presence is otherwise explained?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Hassan Din and others1995 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01
  pre-emptionsecond appealcollateralsunpressed issuesconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' regular second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question involved whether the lower courts erred in failing to record findings on unpressed issues and whether the respondents possessed a superior right of pre-emption as collaterals of the vendor. The Supreme Court held that issues expressly not pressed before the trial court cannot be agitated at the second appeal stage, and that concurrent findings of fact regarding the collateral status of the pre-emptors based on cogent evidence are unexceptionable. The court laid down the principle that a party cannot abandon issues before the trial court and subsequently seek to raise them in higher appellate forums, and affirmed the concurrent decrees granting pre-emption rights to validly established collaterals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether issues not pressed before the trial court can be agitated in a second appeal?
  • Do collaterals have a superior right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land sales?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact based on pedigree tables open to interference where evidence is cogent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31
  leave to appealmurderocular evidencemedical evidencecorroborationchance witnessesmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Lahore High Court and the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, which convicted the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eye-witnesses, the verification of motive, and potential inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prompt lodging of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) negated manipulation, that the close relationship of witnesses to the deceased did not render them interested without prior animosity, and that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. The court laid down the principle that prompt F.I.R. lodging in daylight incidents strongly supports eyewitness credibility, and medical opinions expressing mere possibilities do not displace direct, consistent ocular testimony supported by concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased make them interested witnesses whose testimony requires strong corroboration?
  • Whether prompt lodging of an F.I.R. in broad daylight rules out the possibility of manipulation.
  • Does medical opinion regarding injury possibilities outweigh consistent ocular and circumstantial evidence in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 6 Other vs Member Board of Revenu, Punjab And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 400 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 4 others vs Bholu and 17 others1995 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15
  declaratory suitadverse possessionco-sharersredemption of mortgageleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners instituted two declaratory suits claiming ownership of specific land shares based on adverse possession and challenging a redemption claim concerning a mortgage created in 1911, respectively. Both suits were dismissed by the trial Court, and subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that co-sharers cannot claim adverse possession against other co-sharers in the absence of satisfactory evidence of ouster. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding that the respondents' claim of ownership through unredeemed mortgage within the limitation period remained unrefuted by the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for lack of merit, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer claim ownership of land through adverse possession against other co-sharers without satisfactory evidence of ouster?
  • Whether the failure to redeem a mortgage within the period of limitation vests ownership rights in the mortgagee's successors?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 3 others vs Rajab and 21 others1995 SCMR 742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-27
  civil suitdeclaration of ownershipspecific performanceconversion of suitappellate court discretionpower of attorneyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration of ownership in respect of agricultural land, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed in first appeal. However, in second appeal, the High Court converted the suit into one for specific performance of certain agreements with the consent of the petitioners' counsel, exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and granted a modified decree based on two exhibits while excluding others. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to direct specific performance regarding remaining documents. The Supreme Court held that the grievance was without substance as one document was merely a power of attorney containing no obligation to sell, and regarding the other document, the executant lacked authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle regarding the proper scope of specific performance and appellate court discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can convert a suit for declaration into a suit for specific performance with the consent of parties?
  • Whether a power of attorney containing no obligation to sell can be enforced as an agreement for sale?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against a modified decree where the appellant's counsel consented to the conversion of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 3 others vs Ghulam Hussain and another1995 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18
  co-sharerjoint propertysale of specific khasrapartitiondeclarationinjunctionsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioners, who challenged a sale-deed executed by a co-sharer (defendant No. 2) in favor of the respondent. The petitioners argued that a co-sharer has no legal right to transfer specific portions of joint property. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, declaring the sale null and void. However, the Lahore High Court reversed these decisions in a second appeal and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's judgment, reiterating the established principle that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific portion of joint land, whose share in the joint holding exceeds the area sold, is legally competent to transfer that specific portion. The transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor and is entitled to retain possession of the specific land until a formal partition of the entire joint property takes place.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a co-sharer in possession of a specific portion of joint land can validly sell that specific portion to a transferee if the area sold does not exceed the transferor's overall share in the joint holding?
  • What are the rights of a transferee who purchases a specific portion of joint land from a co-sharer in possession prior to a formal partition?
  • Is a transferee of a specific portion of joint property obligated to surrender any excess area if, upon formal partition, the area in possession exceeds the transferor's actual share?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1995 MLD 1819 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheen Tariq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Secretary, Local Government Department and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Said Rehman and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 571 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Alias Chheela And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 314 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 561 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Alias Kara vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq alias Kaka vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2013 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue and 2 others1995 CLC 966 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15
  consolidation of holdingsreview petitionres judicatafinality of judgmentland entitlementBoard of Revenuewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders by the Board of Revenue concerning land consolidation, specifically the readjustment of land holdings which resulted in a shortfall for the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a second review petition before the Board of Revenue and the legality of the Board's failure to address the petitioner's land entitlement grievance. The Court held that although the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, does not explicitly bar second review petitions, the principles of res judicata and the finality of judicial decisions preclude successive review applications on the same grounds, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court affirmed that an aggrieved party must raise all available grounds in a single review application. However, the Court set aside the impugned orders because the Board of Revenue failed to properly adjudicate the petitioner's valid claim regarding a shortfall in land entitlement during the first review process. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second review petition maintainable before the Board of Revenue under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to successive review applications before the Board of Revenue?
  • Can a court or tribunal correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in its orders despite the absence of a specific statutory provision for second reviews?
  • Is a failure to address a grievance regarding land entitlement in a review petition sufficient grounds to set aside an order of the Board of Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The Member (Cons) Board of Reveenue, PunjabK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 23 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Shadi Khan and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Rent Controller1995 CLC 639 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31
  rent restrictionconstitutional petitioninterlocutory ordermaintainabilitydeposit of rentejectment petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to deposit rent pending the decision of an ejectment petition under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The primary legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller, specifically regarding the deposit of rent. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, reasoning that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature. The Court clarified that if the order were final, the appropriate remedy would have been an appeal, not a constitutional petition. Furthermore, relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Ansari Brothers v. Holy Trinity Church Trust (PLD 1971 SC 700), the Court granted the petitioner a period of 14 days to deposit the rent due, noting that the previous suspension of the order had left 14 days remaining for compliance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the respondent undertaking not to withdraw the deposited rent until the jurisdictional objection was decided.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • If an order passed by a Rent Controller is final, what is the appropriate legal remedy for the aggrieved party?
  • Can a petitioner be granted additional time to deposit rent if the original order was suspended by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Forestry1995 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18
  civil servicetransfer of civil servantmala fidevested rightservice tribunaladministrative transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Accounts Officer, challenged his transfer from Rawalpindi to Lahore before the Punjab Service Tribunal, alleging mala fide intent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that transfer is an ordinary incidence of service and that a civil servant possesses no vested right to remain posted at a specific station. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the matter. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of mala fide intent. Emphasizing that the petitioner had served in Rawalpindi for over thirty years, the Court held that the department's decision to transfer him was not unreasonable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that transfers are administrative prerogatives and that civil servants cannot claim a vested right to a particular place of posting absent proof of malice or illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a particular station?
  • Is a transfer considered an ordinary incidence of service for a civil servant?
  • Can a transfer order be set aside solely on the allegation of mala fide without sufficient evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Forestry1995 PLC (C.S.) 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18
  civil servicetransfer of civil servantmala fideservice tribunalvested rightadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Accounts Officer, challenged his transfer from Rawalpindi to Lahore before the Punjab Service Tribunal, alleging mala fide intent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that transfer is an ordinary incidence of service and that a civil servant possesses no vested right to remain posted at a specific station. The petitioner subsequently sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that transfer is a routine administrative matter. The Court found the evidence provided by the petitioner insufficient to substantiate the claim of mala fide. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had served in Rawalpindi for over thirty years, the Court concluded that the department's decision to transfer him was not unreasonable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that civil servants are subject to transfer at the discretion of competent authorities as part of their service conditions, provided such actions are not demonstrably mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a particular station?
  • Is a transfer considered an ordinary incidence of service for civil servants?
  • What is the standard of proof required to challenge a transfer order on the grounds of mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Election Tribunal and others1995 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Additional District Judge and others1997 MLD 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 3 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and another1995 CLC 481 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 21 others vs Nawabzada Ali Nawaz Khan and another'1995 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23
  evacuee propertyresiduary propertysettlement compromisetransfer of propertyfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition and setting aside an order of the Deputy Administrator Residual Property. The core legal question was whether the property in dispute, consisting of a main bungalow and servant quarters, remained available as residuary evacuee property for disposal under the Residuary Scheme after it had already been validly transferred to the respondents through a settlement compromise and prior judicial pronouncements that had attained finality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the entire property, including the servant quarters, had been lawfully transferred to the respondents in 1960 and that previous rounds of litigation initiated by the occupants had conclusively settled the matter against them, leaving no available property to be dealt with under section 6 of the relevant scheme. The Court laid down the principle that subordinate authorities cannot circumvent final judgments of superior courts or re-litigate settled property rights through colourable exercises of power under residuary schemes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether property once transferred to a claimant under settlement laws can subsequently be treated as available residuary property upon the repeal of evacuee legislation?
  • Can subordinate settlement authorities reopen matters that have attained finality through previous rounds of litigation up to the High Court?
  • Whether occupants of servant quarters attached to a main bungalow have an independent right to demand transfer of those quarters as residual properties when the entire property was already transferred to the primary claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi & Co. vs National Bank and others1995 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15
  banking tribunalspecial courtexclusive jurisdictionconsolidation of suitstransfer of suitbanking companies (recovery of loans)statutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the consolidation and transfer of two separate suits pending before different forums: a suit filed by a bank against a customer before a Banking Tribunal, and a cross-suit for damages filed by the customer against the bank before a Special Court. The petitioner argued that because both suits arose from the same transaction, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to consolidate them. The Court held that the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 and the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 establish forums with distinct, exclusive jurisdictions. The Court reasoned that the Banking Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits filed by customers, whereas the Special Court under the 1979 Ordinance has broader scope. Because these forums are creatures of statute with limited, exclusive jurisdiction, they cannot be equated with courts of general jurisdiction, and the High Court cannot consolidate proceedings across these distinct statutory regimes. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the respective courts were directed to expedite the adjudication of their pending matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court consolidate a suit pending before a Banking Tribunal with a suit pending before a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a Banking Tribunal constituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a customer against a banking company?
  • Are the Banking Tribunal and the Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 courts of general jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar/ vs Ashiq Ali/1995 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadsecond appealburden of proofstatutory demandsIslamic law of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This second civil appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption concerning agricultural land. The appellant (plaintiff) sought to pre-empt a sale on grounds of co-ownership, contiguity, and common user of a watercourse. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant failed to prove the performance of the necessary Islamic legal demands (Talabs). The core legal question was whether the appellant had strictly complied with the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand) and Talb-i-Ishhad (demand by establishing evidence) as mandated by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The High Court held that the appellant failed to establish the precise time of knowledge of the sale, which is critical for Talb-i-Muwathibat, and failed to perform Talb-i-Ishhad 'as soon as possible' as required by Section 13 of the Act. The Court affirmed that these demands are fundamental to the right of pre-emption and that the burden of proof lies on the pre-emptor. Consequently, the concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-observance of these statutory demands were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence of failing to perform the necessary Talabs in a suit for pre-emption?
  • Does the phrase 'as soon thereafter as possible' in Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 require the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad without delay?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the non-observance of Talabs open to challenge in a second appeal?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the pre-emptor to establish the precise time of knowledge of the sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12
  rash and negligent drivingroad accidentpost-mortem examinationcriminal appealacquittaluncorroborated ocular accountDiyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, convicting the appellant under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment with Diyat for causing the death of a cyclist by a tractor. The core legal questions involved whether rash or negligent driving was established beyond doubt and whether the failure to conduct a proper post-mortem examination was fatal to the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the mere expression of high speed or a road accident is insufficient to prove rash or negligent driving without considering traffic conditions, road nature, and traffic rules violation, and that the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination leaves the cause of death unproven. The key principles laid down are that rashness or negligence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires concrete proof of excessive speed relative to traffic and road conditions, and that medical evidence through a post-mortem examination is essential to establish direct causation between the injury and death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere allegation of high speed or a road accident is sufficient to establish rash or negligent driving under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a post-mortem examination necessary to prove that an injury was the immediate and proximate cause of death in a culpable homicide case?
  • Does a failure to mention crucial physical evidence such as a bicycle and tractor in the site plan render the ocular account doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Ashiq AliK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Shakir vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1995 PLC 745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Shakir vs Punjab Road Transport Corp. EtcK.L.R. 1995 Labourr & Service Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 613 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 853 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 6 others vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others1997 MLD 130 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sanaullah vs Ranipur Consolidated Sugar Mills Limited, Ranipur through its General Manager1995 PLC 743 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 6 others vs Muhammad Zubair and 3 others1995 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-26
  specific performanceagreement to sellmortgagecivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their civil revision and upheld the appellate court's judgment setting aside the trial court's decree for specific performance. The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on an agreement deed dated 2-10-1961, holding it to be an agreement to sell, whereas the appellate court and the High Court construed the document as an agreement of mortgage. The core legal question involves the proper construction and interpretation of the impugned agreement deed—specifically whether it constitutes an agreement for the specific performance of a sale or a mortgage transaction. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the un-rebutted evidence of the agreement to sell and the failure of the executant to depose on oath. The interim stay order was directed to continue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the impugned agreement deed constitutes an agreement for specific performance of a sale or an agreement of mortgage?
  • Does the failure of the executant of a deed to depose on oath render the opposing evidence unrebutted?
  • Can an appellate court substitute its own interpretation of a document for that of the trial court without sufficient grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Zeba Abdul Hameed and 2 others1995 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Zeba Abdul Hameed And 2 Other1995 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Pakistan Administrative Staff College and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 719 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan, Inspector Legal, Police College, Sihala vs The Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 18 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and another vs Abdul Hameed and 2 others1995 CLC 1995 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid alias Sajai vs The State1995 SCMR 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-16
  murderinterested witnessesocular testimonycorroborationmotiveleave to appealappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, while altering his sentence from death to life imprisonment, and upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a murderous assault. The core legal question addressed is whether the testimony of interested and related eye-witnesses, in the absence of independent corroboration, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the established motive and corroborative recovery of weapons warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon if their presence is established and their credibility remains unshattered during cross-examination, and further corroboration exists. The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on solid evidence and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that interested ocular testimony, when inspiring confidence and supported by corroborative evidence such as motive and recoveries, forms a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of interested and related eye-witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Whether the High Court can alter a sentence of death to life imprisonment upon re-appraisal of evidence?
  • Is false involvement or substitution of an accused a likely phenomenon in a broad daylight occurrence between persons with no previous enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saifullah Cheema vs Ch. Muhammad Akhtar Kahoja and 4 others1995 CLC 937 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saiful Mulk Nasir vs Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others1995 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27
  land disputejurisdictionenforcement of ordersChitral Regulationcivil appealadministrative authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to enforce orders regarding land entitlement under the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation, 1974. The dispute originated from conflicting claims over landed property in Chitral, where a previous order had declared the respondent entitled to 21 Chakorum of land. The respondent sought enforcement of this order to obtain possession of the remaining land from the appellant. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner possessed the authority to independently enforce this final order or if such enforcement required an officer specifically authorized by the Provincial Government under Section 7 of the Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction, as the orders in question did not demonstrate that he was acting in a capacity authorized by the Regulation or any other applicable law. The Court established the principle that for the enforcement of final orders passed under the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation, 1974, parties must approach the specific officer authorized by the Provincial Government pursuant to Section 7, rather than invoking the Deputy Commissioner's general jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner have inherent jurisdiction to enforce final orders passed under the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation 1974?
  • Is an order for the enforcement of a land entitlement decision valid if passed by an officer not authorized under Section 7 of the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation 1974?
  • What is the correct procedure for enforcing a final decision made under the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Satti vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 661 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad SAEED/Tenant vs Indico Paint Colour and Varnish1995 PLD Karachi 25 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-22
  Section 12(2) applicationconsent orderVakalatnamaauthority of counselrent evictionfraud and misrepresentationcompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by an appellant seeking to set aside a consent order passed in a rent appeal. The core legal question was whether a counsel, acting under a Vakalatnama that expressly authorized the withdrawal or compromise of the matter, could bind the client to a consent order, and whether such an order could be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court held that the application was meritless, finding no evidence of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation by the counsel. The Court emphasized that the Vakalatnama explicitly empowered the advocate to compromise or withdraw the appeal. Furthermore, the consent order provided the appellant with a tangible benefit by extending their possession of the premises for a specified period. Consequently, the Court ruled that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were not attracted, and the application was dismissed, upholding the validity of the original consent order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consent order be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Does a Vakalatnama containing an express clause to withdraw or compromise a case authorize an advocate to bind their client to a consent order?
  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained solely on allegations of negligence against an advocate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeedullah Khan vs Allah Diwaya and 8 others1995 CLC 683 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Economic Affairs Wing, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 16 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1106 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Excise & Taxation Officer, Sahiwal and 2 others1995 MLD 2037 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Excise & Taxation Officer, Sahiwal And 2 Other1995 MLD 2037 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1995 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17
  Zina-bil-JabrOffence of Zinaconsenting partycorroboration of evidencewitness credibilitycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, and his appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for Zina could be sustained based solely on the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix, who had been determined by the lower courts to be a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be upheld. The Court reasoned that because the prosecutrix was found to be a consenting party, her testimony regarding the alleged force was proven false, rendering her an undependable and dishonest witness. Consequently, in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence—as the medical report was inconclusive and no other witnesses observed the act—the conviction was unsustainable. The Court established the principle that a conviction for Zina cannot be safely recorded based on the solitary, uncorroborated statement of a witness whose testimony has been proven unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained solely on the uncorroborated statement of a prosecutrix who is found to be a consenting party?
  • Does the testimony of a witness proven to be dishonest require independent corroboration to support a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Superintendent of Police, Kasur and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Khanpur Subdivision1995 MLD 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Sardar and others1995 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-18
  gift mutationconstructive possessionadmissionJamabandipresumption of titlecivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the validity of a gift mutation attested in 1969. The petitioner, as donor, filed a civil suit in 1982 challenging the gift and mutation. While the trial court decreed the suit in the petitioner's favor, the appellate court reversed this, finding the suit time-barred and the gift valid. The High Court, in revision, maintained the dismissal of the suit, albeit reversing the finding on limitation. The Supreme Court examined whether the gift mutation was correctly attested. It held that a clear admission by the petitioner, as noted in the High Court judgment, established the essential ingredients of a valid gift: declaration, delivery of possession, and acceptance. The Court further held that even if physical cultivation records (Khasra Girdawari) remained unchanged, constructive possession is deemed transferred upon such an admission. Additionally, the incorporation of the mutation in the Jamabandi raised a presumption of title. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an admission of the ingredients of a gift satisfy the requirement of delivery of possession?
  • Can constructive possession be deemed transferred despite unchanged cultivation records in Khasra Girdawari?
  • Does the incorporation of a mutation in the Jamabandi raise a presumption of title?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Nazar Muhammad and 3 others1995 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  pre-emptiontenancyKhasra Girdawarifraudulent decreeleave to appealmisreading of evidencerival pre-emptor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal regarding a pre-emption dispute. The petitioner, Muhammad Sadiq, had previously obtained a pre-emption decree based on a claim of tenancy over the suit land. Subsequently, the respondent, Nazar Muhammad, filed a separate suit challenging the petitioner's decree as fraudulent and collusive, asserting his own superior right of pre-emption as a collateral of the vendor. The trial court and the appellate courts concurrently found that the petitioner failed to establish his tenancy and that the previous decree in his favor was not binding on the respondent. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts misread or failed to read the documentary evidence, specifically the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris, regarding the petitioner's alleged tenancy. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the petitioner's submissions regarding the alleged misreading of evidence and ordered the parties to maintain the status quo pending the final adjudication of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption decree obtained through a collusive suit be challenged by a rival pre-emptor?
  • Does the failure to establish tenancy status invalidate a pre-emption claim based on such tenancy?
  • What is the effect of a finding of fact by lower courts regarding the non-existence of tenancy on a pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Najeeb Ali and others1995 SCMR 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-10
  murderacquittalbenefit of doubtimprovements in testimonyabscondencespecial leave to appealocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondent of a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondent shot and killed the deceased due to a family grudge arising from an alleged illicit liaison. The trial court had convicted the respondent, but the High Court set aside the conviction, giving the respondent the benefit of the doubt due to material contradictions, mala fide improvements by eye-witnesses regarding the time of occurrence and distance of firing to match medical evidence, lack of independent corroboration, and an unproven motive. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence and acquittal of the respondent was perverse or suffered from a miscarriage of justice warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions of the High Court were well-founded on the record and not perverse, noting that abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction when the ocular account is unreliable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and mala fide improvements in the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses justify giving the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Can evidence of abscondence alone sustain a murder conviction when the ocular testimony is full of contradictions and uncorroborated?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Allah DittaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Khan vs Muhammad Arshad And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 249 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Ali Asghar Khan and others1995 CLC 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-07
  Land AcquisitionTransposition of partiesInherent powersNatural justiceLocus standiRecall of orderCollusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Additional District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge, Abbottabad, which recalled a previous order transposing certain respondents as petitioners in a land acquisition objection petition. The core legal question was whether the lower court acted lawfully in recalling its earlier order of transposition, which had been passed without notice to the contesting respondents. The High Court held that the initial order of transposition was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was obtained without notice to the contesting parties and appeared to be the result of collusion. The Court affirmed that a trial court possesses inherent powers to recall an order passed without notice or in violation of natural justice to prevent the abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the Court found the appeal itself incompetent, as the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the recall order, given that the parties directly affected by the recall did not pursue the matter. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the trial court's exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court recall an order passed without notice to the affected parties in the exercise of its inherent powers?
  • Does an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice warrant recall by the court that issued it?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed on the grounds that the appellants lack the necessary locus standi to challenge the impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  post-arrest baildelayed F.I.R.extra-judicial confessionmurderfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' prayer for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under a delayed First Information Report. The core legal question concerns whether reasonable grounds existed to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged murder of the deceased, given the considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R., the nature of the evidence including an extra-judicial confession, and conflicting motives. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that reasonable grounds did not appear to exist to believe that the petitioners committed the capital offense. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies on delayed reporting and tenuous evidentiary links such as an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted, making them a proper case for the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed registration of an F.I.R. and weak evidentiary links justify the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession serve as sufficient ground to deny bail when reasonable grounds do not exist connecting the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddval vs Aman UllahK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs The State1995 MLD 677 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabihul Qazi vs Vicechancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and others1995 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saai vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan Khan vs Ishtiaq AliK.L.R.1995 Civil Cases 320 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan Khan vs Commandant Frontier Corps Battle1995 PLC (C.S.) 919 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 349 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State and another1995 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-04
  bail cancellationleave to appealpolice investigationcriminal procedurediscretionary order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of a petition for cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question revolves around whether bail should be cancelled when an accused, initially found innocent during multiple police investigations, is subsequently challaned in a later investigation. The Supreme Court held that where senior police officers, including a D.S.P. (Legal) and an S.P., disagreed with the findings of the last investigating officer and the accused was placed in column No. 2 of the challan, there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court granting bail. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with a discretionary order granting bail based on conflicting police investigation reports where the accused's involvement remains debatable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted to an accused can be cancelled solely on the ground that a subsequent police investigation found him involved?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court granting bail based on conflicting investigation reports?
  • What is the effect of senior police officers disagreeing with the findings of the final investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The Government of N-W.F.P. through Secretary of Education, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 546 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Sakina And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 413 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Inspector-General of Police, Northern Areas, Gilgit and 28 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 345 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Headmaster. Government High School Chak No.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Services Cases 201 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26
  leave to appealframing of chargepre-trial acquittalOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancesodomytrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Federal Shariat Court, which had dismissed a revision petition against the refusal of a trial court to acquit the petitioners under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners were charged under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged sodomy. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should intervene at the pre-charge stage to determine the applicability of section 12 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would be premature and improper to examine the merits of the case before the trial court had framed charges. The Court affirmed that the trial court possesses the authority to evaluate the police report and prosecution documents at the time of framing charges and may decline to frame a charge if no grounds exist. Furthermore, the trial court retains the power to amend charges at any stage based on evidence, and premature intervention by an appellate court would risk prejudicing the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to determine the applicability of a specific charge before the trial court has framed charges?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to amend charges at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Can a trial court decline to frame a charge if it finds no grounds for it after reviewing the prosecution's documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 14.46 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Akhtar vs Sub-RegistrarK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 311 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs The State1995 MLD 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Naveed Akhtar alias Sahib and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Lahore Development Authority1995 CLC 912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 281 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →