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.
- Muhammad Mansha and 7 others vs Abdul Sattar and 4 others1995 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Judge. The dispute arose from a civil suit where the plaintiff offered to have the suit dismissed if a designated third party took a special oath on the Holy Qur'an regarding the payment of the sale consideration. The defendant accepted this offer. Before the oath was administered, the plaintiff filed an application to resile from the offer. The trial court rejected the withdrawal, administered the oath, and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether a party who offers to be bound by a special oath can unilaterally resile from such an offer after it has been accepted by the opposite party. The Court held that an offer to be bound by a special oath, once accepted, constitutes a binding contract. Consequently, a party cannot resile from it unless the agreement is shown to be void or frustrated. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party unilaterally resile from an offer to be bound by a special oath after that offer has been accepted by the opposite party?
- Does an accepted offer to decide a suit on a special oath constitute a binding contract between the parties?
- Under what circumstances, if any, may a court permit a party to withdraw an offer to be bound by a special oath once it has been accepted?
- Muhammad Mansha and 2 others vs University of the Punjab through Vice Chancellor, Lahore and 3 others1995 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the new syllabus and pattern of the English paper for the B.A. examinations introduced by the University of the Punjab. The petitioners contended that the changes were made without prior intimation, lacked approval of the competent authority, and caused hardship. The respondent University refuted the allegations, demonstrating that the syllabus and exam pattern were finalized in 1993, duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor under section 15 of the University of Punjab Act, 1973, and later ratified with post facto approval by the Academic Council, complying with section 28 of the Act. The court held that the University and its organs possess the inherent authority and statutory power to prescribe and modify syllabi and examination formats. Finding no legal infirmity or mala fides, the court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that the competent academic authorities have the discretion to regulate academic standards and examination formats.
Questions settled- Whether the University of the Punjab has the legal authority to alter the syllabus and examination pattern for degree classes under the University of Punjab Act, 1973?
- Can the Academic Council grant post facto approval to changes in the syllabus and examination pattern introduced by the University?
- Does a change in the format of a question paper by the University warrant interference by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Mansha And 2 Other vs The Station House Officer, PoliceK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 633 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad Din1995 CLC 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha alias Mungal Singh vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Malik and Other vs Sher Baz and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 179 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Malik and 2 others vs Sher Baz and 8 others1997 MLD 209 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mahmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 392 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif vs Haq Nawaz Khan and 2 others1995 MLD 258 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif vs Haq Nawaz Khan And 2 Other1995 MLD 258 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif Khan vs Sarwar Hussain and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 182 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition challenging the promotion and appointment of the appellant as a Food Inspector was accepted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was whether a writ petition is an appropriate remedy in service matters or if the jurisdiction of the High Court stands ousted in favor of the Service Tribunal, including for orders alleged to be without jurisdiction or coram non judice. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters is completely ousted by constitutional provisions and section 47 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, and that all orders relating to the terms and conditions of service—whether passed with or without jurisdiction—are appealable before the Service Tribunal, which possesses wider powers than the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction in service matters is absolute, and even void, mala fide, or without-jurisdiction orders must be challenged before the Service Tribunal rather than through a writ petition.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters stands completely ousted in view of constitutional provisions and the establishment of the Service Tribunal?
- Can an order passed without jurisdiction regarding the terms and conditions of a civil servant be challenged before the Service Tribunal?
- Does a writ petition lie before the High Court against an order relating to the terms and conditions of service on the ground that the order is void or without jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Khurshid vs Abdul Subhan Mir and 10 others1995 MLD 790 · Northern Areas Chief Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khurshid Defendant/Appellant vs Abdul Subhan Mir And 101995 MLD 790 · Northern Areas Chief CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan, (Now Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs vs ShabratiK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 537 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The State and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad InayatK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 542 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs and others vs Shabarati1995 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision was directed against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi West, affirming the Third Senior Civil Judge's dismissal of an application for restoration of a civil suit. The applicant's suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits, injunction, and cancellation of a decree was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant sought restoration alongside an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, explaining that he pursued a wrong date due to a bona fide mistake caused by two suits bearing the same number being scheduled on the same date. The trial court and appellate court refused restoration, citing lack of documentary proof and counsel negligence. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision, set aside the lower courts' orders, and restored the suit for trial on the merits. The Court held that a bona fide misapprehension regarding hearing dates constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to condone delays in restoration applications.
Questions settled- Whether a bona fide mistake or misapprehension regarding a hearing date constitutes sufficient cause for restoring a suit dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to condone delay in an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for restoration of a suit?
- Muhammad Khan and others vs Zakir Hussain and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a broad-daylight murder in Sangla Hill, where five accused persons allegedly shot and killed the deceased to avenge a previous murder. The trial court convicted all five accused under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), sentencing three to death and two to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Lahore High Court acquitted two of the accused (who had been ascribed a generalized role of firing in the air) and altered the death sentences of the remaining three to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 PPC, questioning the precise attribution of injuries in a close-range multiple firearm assault. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reappraising the evidence, upheld the High Court's decision. The Court held that the prompt registration of the FIR negated the possibility of preliminary fabrication, and that the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased does not inherently discredit their testimony if it is otherwise credible and corroborated. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the prompt registration of an FIR negate the possibility of preliminary police consultation and fabrication of the prosecution story?
- Can a witness be discarded as an 'interested witness' solely on the basis of their relationship to the deceased?
- Whether the failure of the police to join independent public witnesses from a busy locality invalidates otherwise credible ocular evidence?
- Is the alteration of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when individual attribution of injuries in a close-range multiple firearm assault is questionable?
- Muhammad Khaliq Alias Kheeloo vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalilurrehman vs Mst. Shabana Rahman and another1995 PLD Supreme Court 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges two orders passed by the High Court of Sindh concerning the custody of a minor child under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The core legal questions involved whether a review petition is maintainable against an order passed under Section 491 Cr.P.C. using the inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., and whether the jurisdiction of a criminal court under Section 491 Cr.P.C. is ousted by the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 491 Cr.P.C. and the Guardians and Wards Act operate in different spheres without mutual exclusion or overlapping, and thus a criminal court retains jurisdiction to restore the custody of a minor illegally removed from lawful custody. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 561-A Cr.P.C. does not permit a general review of orders unless there is an exceptional circumstance such as an order passed without jurisdiction or without a hearing. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to the incompetence of the review proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a criminal court review its own earlier order or judgment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the enactment of the Guardians and Wards Act oust the jurisdiction of a High Court or Sessions Court to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 Cr.P.C. for the custody of a minor?
- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent and misconceived review remedy be excluded for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Khalil vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 434 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1266 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs The Magistrate 1St Class, Pakpattan SharifK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 547 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs S.H.O., Police Station, Yazman1995 MLD 1080 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs Fazal Kareem1995 MLD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs Central Board of Directors, Fauji Foundation, Rawalpindi through Managing Director1995 PLC 598 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid Hussain- vs The State1995 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentences of the petitioners for the murders of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused through ocular testimony, recoveries, and medical evidence, despite alleged discrepancies in the medical reports regarding the number of injuries sustained by one of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, the eye-witnesses were independent and natural, and the prosecution evidence was consistent. The Court determined that the ocular testimony could not be discarded based on a minor discrepancy in medical testimony that was not challenged during cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses are reliable and independent, and their testimony is corroborated by other evidence, minor discrepancies in medical reports—especially those not raised or challenged in lower courts—do not suffice to undermine the prosecution's case or warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony be discarded solely based on an unchallenged discrepancy in medical evidence regarding the number of injuries?
- Does the failure to cross-examine a medical witness on a discrepancy in the number of injuries render that evidence reliable?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Muhammad Khalid alias Goga vs The State1997 MLD 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Kaleem vs The State1995 MLD 1152 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jewan Bhatti vs Muhammad Rafiq ChaudharyK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jehangir alias Badshah and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the convictions of the appellants under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether injured and present eye-witnesses whose testimony was found to have falsely implicated an innocent co-accused (who successfully proved an alibi) and another acquitted co-accused could be relied upon without exceptionally strong corroboration regarding the identity of the remaining appellants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where eye-witnesses are shown to be untruthful and reckless in falsely involving innocent persons, their testimony requires exceptionally strong corroboration specifically connecting each accused to the crime, which motive and medical evidence cannot provide. The appeal was accepted, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether eye-witnesses whose testimony is found false regarding the role of some accused can be relied upon without exceptionally strong corroboration against remaining accused?
- Does medical evidence corroborate the identity of individual assailants in a criminal trial?
- How does the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of a false implication affect the credibility of eye-witness testimony against other co-accused?
- Can motive serve as sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction when eye-witnesses have been found reckless in implicating innocent persons?
- Muhammad Javed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed Iqbal vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another1995 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against the judgment dated 3-7-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The petitioner, originally inducted into service in the Ministry of Defence drawing special pay, was subsequently transferred and permanently inducted into the Office Management Group as a Section Officer. Upon receiving move-over to BPS-20, he requested that his special pay of Rs. 330 per month be treated as part of his basic pay for pay fixation purposes, which was declined by the Ministry of Finance, culminating in the tribunal dismissing his appeal. The core legal question was whether special pay drawn by a civil servant is to be included in emoluments for the purpose of pay fixation and pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court observed that under substituted Rule 486 of the Civil Service Regulations, special pay of all types and nature is included in emoluments, and noted precedents where special pay was merged with basic pay upon promotion. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the amended rule and past precedent.
Questions settled- Does special pay drawn by a civil servant constitute part of emoluments for the purpose of pay fixation upon move-over or promotion?
- Whether substituted Rule 486 of the Civil Service Regulations includes special pay of all types and nature within the definition of emoluments?
- Can a civil servant claim inclusion of special pay into basic pay for pay fixation based on departmental precedent established by Presidential sanction in similar cases?
- Muhammad Javed And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 658 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javaid vs Judge Special Court and others1995 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil vs Tabey Hussain1995 MLD 625 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Khan vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax , . (1995 PTD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Etc vs Haji Muhammad Din And SonsK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 246 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Butt vs The Chairman, Central Boardof Revenue and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 660 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Butt vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the petitioner Customs Inspector's appeal by converting his dismissal from service into removal from service. The petitioner was earlier charge-sheeted, inquired against, and found guilty of misconduct for submitting an incorrect and misleading examination report regarding export consignments containing surgical instruments and footballs in lesser quantities than declared, resulting in loss to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry and the Tribunal's judgment suffered from any legal flaws regarding evidence, lack of personal hearing, or proof of the U.S. Customs report. The Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry properly relied on special knowledge of rules, that the U.S. Customs report carried an unrebutted presumption of correctness, and that the Service Tribunal's judgment was well-reasoned. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that departmental inquiry findings based on unrebutted foreign customs reports are legally sustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental inquiry report can rely on foreign customs inspection reports without direct evidence from foreign officers?
- Whether an accused civil servant is entitled to interference by the Supreme Court when departmental misconduct is established through a valid inquiry?
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the discretion to alter a penalty of dismissal to removal from service?
- Muhammad Jamil and others vs Haji Muhammad Din & Sons1995 PLD Lahore 107 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil and anothers vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 36 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jameel vs Allah Ditta1995 MLD 700 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jameel and another vs The Income Tax Officer/Tax1995 PTD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jameel Akhtar, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jahangir vs The Director-General, National Savings, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Jahangir Mughal vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and 27 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 471 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jahangir Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 47 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jaffar and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2052 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Israeel Alias Nikku vs The State1995 MLD 1988 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 298 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Sher Muhammad and 7 others1995 SCMR 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which quashed criminal proceedings initiated under a second F.I.R. regarding the alleged kidnapping of children. The petitioner, the husband of the deceased victim in a related murder case, challenged the High Court's decision on the grounds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere at the investigation stage. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court is competent to exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the matter is still under investigation and no challan has been presented in court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's impugned judgment aligns with the established legal principle laid down in Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677), which restricts the scope of judicial interference during the investigative phase of criminal proceedings. The Court seeks to determine if the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing an ongoing investigation.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings while the matter is still at the investigation stage?
- Is the High Court competent to interfere with a police investigation before a challan has been presented in court?
- Muhammad Ismail vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 285 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Jamil Ur Rehman and 6 others1995 MLD 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Jamil Ur Rehman And 6 Other1995 MLD 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Divisional Engineer, Carrier and Coaxial Cables, Nowshera and 2 others1995 PLC 240 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail And Other vs Malik Muhammad Shafi And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
- Nazir Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail And Other vs Imam Hakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 605 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and another vs The State1995 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed upon the appellants for a triple murder. The primary legal questions concerned the reliability of a 7/8-year-old child witness’s identification of the assailants during a night occurrence and the admissibility of a retracted judicial confession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. The Court held that the child witness, having been tested for maturity, provided credible testimony, clarifying that the assailants had unmuffled their faces during the attack, thereby enabling identification. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a retracted confession is not inherently inadmissible due to delay; it remains valid if the court is satisfied it was voluntary and true. The judgment reaffirms that the evidence of a child witness possessing sufficient understanding is reliable and that a conviction can be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary witness, provided it inspires confidence. The Court found no misreading of evidence by the lower courts, thus maintaining the conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary child witness?
- Does a delay in recording a judicial confession automatically render it inadmissible?
- Is the testimony of a child witness reliable if they initially stated the assailants' faces were muffled?
- Can a retracted confession be used as evidence against the maker and as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused?
- Muhammad Ismail and 4 others vs The District Ushr and Zakat1995 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against the removal of the appellant from the office of Chairman, Local Zakat and Ushr Committee. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding fraud and forgery returned by the special forum after a proper inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were found guilty of fraud and forgery through a proper inquiry by the District Ushr and Zakat Committee, which constituted a finding of fact by a special forum that warranted no interference in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the appellants had previously sought relief through a civil suit before invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact arrived at by a special forum after a proper inquiry?
- Can a party invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 after seeking relief through a civil suit?
- Muhammad Islam vs Cafe-D' Khan, Karachi , .1995 PLC 256 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Islam and 5 others vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions filed by both employees of Pakistan Railways and the Railway authority challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal controversies concerned whether the grant of a 'selection grade' constitutes a promotion and whether the employees were entitled to a specific special pay of Rs. 75 per month. The Tribunal, through a split decision resolved by the Chairman, held that the grant of a selection grade involves an element of selection and constitutes a promotion, while denying the claim for special pay. The Supreme Court reviewed the contentions regarding the fixation of pay and the abolition of special pay. Finding that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was just and proper and that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that a change of grade or post for the better, involving an element of selection based on comparative suitability, constitutes a promotion rather than an automatic entitlement.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a selection grade constitute a promotion?
- Is a change of grade or post for the better considered a promotion when it involves an element of selection?
- Does a case involving pay fixation and selection grade status necessarily involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1736 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishfaq and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque vs Cofcot Textile (Pvt.) Ltd., Hyderabad through Manager1995 PLC 42 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque vs Azizuddin1995 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1995 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque And Others vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs Lt.Cdr. (Rtd.) M.A.H. Bokhari and anotherDefendants1995 CLC 676 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Is Haq vs Azizuddin1995 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the convictions of the petitioners for murder and hurt under sections 302 and 323, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their death sentences to life imprisonment. The petitioners challenged their conviction, arguing that the ocular testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses was unreliable due to existing enmity and familial relationships, thereby requiring independent corroboration. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that there was a significant discrepancy between the medical evidence, which noted blackening around the deceased's wounds, and the ocular account, which claimed the firing occurred from a considerable distance. The Supreme Court, finding that these contentions regarding the credibility of inimical witnesses and the conflict between medical and ocular evidence warranted further judicial scrutiny, granted leave to appeal. The decision underscores the necessity of examining whether ocular testimony, when contradicted by medical findings or tainted by enmity, can sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the distance of firing warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of inimical and related eye-witnesses in a murder trial?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in a criminal case involving disputed ocular testimony?
- Muhammad Irfan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2014 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan And 15 Other vs Post Master General And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 395 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1587 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 60 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 391995 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal and upheld his promotion to the cadre of Superintendent with effect from 22-5-1989. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was justified in rendering a subsequent finding regarding the petitioner's promotion date that allegedly conflicted with its earlier decision dated 2-9-1993, which had recognized his seniority from an earlier date and protected his promotion status. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the contradictory findings of the Tribunal require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the subsequent finding of the Tribunal conflicted with its previous order and whether a vested right was adversely affected. The key principle laid down is that contradictory adjudications by a service tribunal regarding seniority and promotion dates require examination by the appellate court to protect established rights.
Questions settled- Whether a service tribunal can render a subsequent decision that conflicts with its earlier final order regarding a civil servant's seniority and promotion?
- Does an unchallenged promotion order create a vested right that cannot be subsequently reversed by the departmental authority or the tribunal?
- When does a service matter warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Narcotics Control Division, Islamabad and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeals as time-barred. The petitioner, an Assistant transferred to the Narcotics Control Division, sought promotion to the post of Superintendent, claiming seniority over other officials who had been promoted in 1989 and 1990. The petitioner challenged the departmental rejection of his representations regarding seniority and promotion before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding they were time-barred because the private respondents had already been promoted in 1989 and 1990. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his appeals were filed within the statutory limitation period following the departmental rejection on 17-1-1994, and argued that the Tribunal erred in applying the bar of limitation based on the respondents' prior promotion dates. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of limitation to the petitioner's service appeals, specifically addressing the timing of the departmental rejection versus the underlying promotion dates of the respondents.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a departmental representation on a specific date trigger a fresh period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Can a service appeal be dismissed as time-barred based on the dates of respondents' promotions if the departmental authority did not reject the petitioner's representation on the ground of limitation?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Narcotics Control Division, Islamabad and 4 others1995 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeals as time-barred. The petitioner, an Assistant transferred from the Interior Division to the Narcotics Control Division, challenged the seniority and subsequent promotion of the private respondents, who had been promoted to the post of Superintendent (BPS-16) in 1989 and 1990. The petitioner contended that his departmental representations were rejected on 17-1-1994, and his subsequent appeals to the Tribunal filed on 15-2-1994 were within the limitation period. The core legal question is whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals as time-barred, particularly when the departmental authority had not rejected the petitioner's representations on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of limitation in the context of the petitioner's departmental representations and the dates of the respondents' promotions. The judgment establishes that the Tribunal's dismissal on limitation grounds requires scrutiny when departmental remedies are pursued.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is time-barred if filed within the statutory period following the rejection of a departmental representation?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal as time-barred based on the dates of promotion of respondents when the departmental authority did not reject the petitioner's representation on the ground of limitation?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Pahoo Mal1995 MLD 1064 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Noor Muhammad and others1997 MLD 137 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs National Bank of Pakistan through its President1995 PLC (C.S.) 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition arising from an earlier order disposing of a writ petition. The petitioner had challenged his dismissal from service by the National Bank of Pakistan following a departmental enquiry. During the hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner's counsel withdrew the petition upon an assurance from the bank to consider converting the dismissal into removal without back benefits, a course the petitioner claimed was unauthorized. The High Court dismissed the subsequent review petition holding that disputed questions of fact regarding counsel's authority could not be resolved in review. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the counsel possessed the requisite authority to compromise the matter, and crucially, to examine the question of whether the Service Rules framed by the National Bank of Pakistan possess the status of statutory rules amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Rules framed by the National Bank of Pakistan possess the status of statutory rules?
- Can the violation of National Bank of Pakistan Service Rules be questioned through a constitutional writ petition?
- Does the general authority of a counsel extend to entering into a compromise without specific instructions from the client?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Nazir and anothers1997 MLD 297 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Islamia University and others1995 MLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Islamia University And Other1995 MLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Parliamentary Affairs Division, Islamabad and another1995 SCMR 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the reversion of the appellant from the post of Staff-car Driver to Naib-Qasid on allegations of misconduct regarding the damage and replacement of vehicle tyres. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of reversion based on allegations amounting to theft and gross negligence could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that where a charge involves theft and replacement of property, it is necessary to hold a regular inquiry to record evidence and afford the accused an opportunity of cross-examination, especially when the record fails to show any written decision by the authorized officer dispensing with such inquiry or communicating reasons therefor. The Court laid down the principle that the imposition of major penalties on serious charges like theft requires strict adherence to regular inquiry procedures, including the recording of evidence and the right of cross-examination.
Questions settled- Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty for misconduct involving allegations of theft?
- Can an authorized officer dispense with a regular inquiry without a written order and without informing the accused of the reasons in writing?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can uphold a reversion order passed without recording evidence in proof of serious allegations?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs District Magistrate, Sahiwal1995 P Cr. L J 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Medical Superintendent, D.H.Q. Hospital, Bannu and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1149 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Chancellor, Gomal University and others1995 CLC 510 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Javaid and 2 others vs General Manager, Hyesons1995 PLC 375 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry and others vs Civil Aviation Authority and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 421 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Air Traffic Control Officers, challenged the appointment of respondents 5-8 to Pay Group 9 by the Civil Aviation Authority, alleging that these appointments violated their seniority rights and specific Establishment Division instructions regarding the induction of Armed Forces personnel into civil service. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding service matters governed by internal regulations rather than statutory rules. The Court held that the regulations framed by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance 1982 do not possess statutory force, as the Government does not supervise or approve them. Consequently, service terms governed by such internal regulations cannot be enforced through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the induction of the respondents exceeded the 10% quota for Armed Forces personnel, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the quota applied exclusively to the Civil Aviation Authority rather than the civil service at large. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding service matters governed by internal regulations?
- Do regulations framed by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance 1982 constitute statutory rules?
- Can terms and conditions of service not governed by statutory rules be enforced through a writ petition?
- Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs The Chairman, Municipal Committee, Jhang1995 PLC 569 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Khushi Muhammad through Legal Heirs1995 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Khushi Muhammad Through Legal Heirs1995 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →