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 Anar vs The State1995 MLD 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 470 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-05
  narcotics smugglingchain of custodybenefit of doubtsearch and seizureCustoms Actcriminal appealSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, for smuggling heroin. The core legal questions concerned the integrity of the chain of custody regarding the narcotics samples sent for chemical analysis and the prosecution's compliance with mandatory search procedures. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a secure link between the recovered material and the chemical analysis report, as the report did not match the quantity or description of the seized items. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by neglecting to associate respectable local witnesses for the search without proving that such efforts were made. Additionally, the Court noted significant discrepancies regarding the location of the search and seizure. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, resulting in his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate local witnesses during a search as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the recovery?
  • Is the prosecution's case fatally flawed if the chain of custody for narcotics samples sent to a chemical examiner is not established?
  • Can a search and seizure be considered valid if conducted at a customs office rather than the place of interception?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs General Manager (I.S.), WAPDA Computer Centre1995 PLC (C.S.) 533 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and others vs Syed Kazim Hussain and others1995 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs Syed Kazim Hussain And Other1995 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 261 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin alias Manna vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-14
  murdercapital punishmentoral dying declarationocular accountsole eye-witnesscriminal appealspeedy trials court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Gujranwala, convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for murder. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of an ocular account furnished by a single witness, the reliability of an oral dying declaration, and the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries against the defense's plea of mistaken identity and false implication. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the natural and disinterested eye-witness, corroborated by consistent oral dying declarations and supporting recovery evidence, proved the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down that minor discrepancies regarding ancillary details do not impair a credible dying declaration or a reliable ocular account, and that young age per se is no ground for withholding the normal penalty in a brutal murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a single eye-witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does minor discrepancy in recounting the reason for an attack vitiate an otherwise reliable oral dying declaration?
  • Whether young age per se constitutes a mitigating circumstance for withholding the death penalty in a murder case?
  • Can a defense plea of mistaken identity based on similarity of names be accepted in the face of positive identification by natural witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 637 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf, Technician vs Khalid Jamil, General Secretary, Pakistan Telecommunication Staff Union1995 PLC 550 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf Technician vs Khalid Jamil and another1995 PLC 219 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 194 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Ismail1995 MLD 795 · Board of Revenue · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Hussain1995 MLD 5 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Subuhi Begum1995 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Sozar vs Yahya Ahmad Bawany and others1995 MLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Sozar vs Yahya Ahmad Bawany And Other1995 MLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Phull vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Etc vs Muhammad AmirK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs Secretary (Consolidation) and others1995 CLC 406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs Muhammad Amir1995 PLD Lahore 124 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-20
  part performanceunregistered sale deedmutationlimitationdeclaratory suitpari delictotransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for possession and declaration filed by the respondent against the appellants, challenging a mutation of sale of land executed in 1961 on the ground that it was illegal and without a registered sale deed. The trial court and lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for declaration against an oral or defectively documented sale transaction is barred by limitation, whether a plaintiff can take advantage of their own wrong to undo a transaction, and whether a thumb-marked report recorded in the Rozenamcha of a Patwari satisfies the writing requirement of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the respondent's suit, holding that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, that the plaintiff could not take advantage of his own wrong to dispossess the vendee, and that a signed or thumb-marked report recorded by a Patwari constitutes sufficient 'writing' to attract the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit seeking a declaration that a mutation is fictitious and fraudulent is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a vendor who transferred land through an oral transaction and a report recorded in the Patwari's Rozenamcha subsequently maintain a suit for possession and declaration?
  • Does a thumb-marked report recorded in the Rozenamcha of a Patwari satisfy the requirement of a writing signed by the transferor under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Whether the equitable relief of declaration can be refused to a plaintiff whose conduct is unconscionable or who attempts to take advantage of his own wrong?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Other vs Muhammad AmirK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 3 others vs The State and others1995 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15
  leave to appealappraisal of evidenceacquittalenhancement of sentencestatement of accusedmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions seeking leave to appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and murderous assault, as well as a petition challenging the acquittal of co-accused and seeking enhancement of sentences. The core legal question concerns whether the conviction of the petitioners could be sustained solely on their statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the High Court disbelieved the eye-witnesses and recoveries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the contentions regarding conviction based on the accused's statements, and similarly granted leave on the question of enhancement of sentences. However, the Court declined to grant leave regarding the acquittal of the five co-accused, finding that the lower courts had properly appraised the evidence and drawn reasonable conclusions. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved, the sustainability of a conviction primarily based on the accused's exculpatory or qualified statement requires careful appraisal by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted merely on their statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when eye-witnesses and recoveries have been disbelieved?
  • Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be granted when the lower courts have reasonably appraised the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Chand Mian vs The State1997 MLD 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aleem vs Town Committee, Samasatta and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Zaidi vs The Water and Power Development1995 PLC (C.S.) 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  WAPDAmove-overservice benefitsqualifying servicepensiondeputationservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Akram Zaidi, challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the refusal by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to grant him a move-over from BPS-18 to BPS-19. The petitioner, originally appointed as a Social Welfare Officer in the Government of West Pakistan in 1967, was later absorbed into WAPDA in 1983. Upon reaching the maximum of BPS-18, he sought a move-over to BPS-19, which was denied on the grounds of insufficient length of service. The petitioner argued that his prior government service should be counted toward the length of service required for the move-over, noting that WAPDA had already conceded that this prior service counted toward pension and earned leave benefits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the petitioner's initial government service, which the respondent acknowledged for other service benefits, should legally be included in the calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of move-over to BPS-19, thereby addressing the consistency of service benefit application.

  Questions settled

  • Should prior government service be counted towards the length of service required for a move-over to a higher pay scale in WAPDA?
  • Does the recognition of prior service for pension and leave purposes mandate its inclusion for move-over eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs WAPDA through its Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1207 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Syed Raheem and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1211 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Jumo and others1995 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Sajjad vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Bhatti, Etc. vs Govt of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 539 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Others vs District Collector/Settlement1995 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs District Collector/Settlement1995 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs Arsalla Khan and others1997 MLD 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 950 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 4 others vs The State1995 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26
  retracted confessionacquittalcriminal appealremand orderappellate interferencevoluntary confessionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Federal Shariat Court, which had set aside an acquittal judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for rewriting. The appellants were originally tried for offences under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court had acquitted the accused, primarily rejecting a retracted confession due to inconsistencies with the prosecution's case and evidence of potential coercion. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's acquittal and remanding the case. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Shariat Court erred in its interference, as the trial court's reasoning for discarding the confession was sound and based on a proper assessment of evidence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal judgment should not be interfered with lightly, especially when the trial court's conclusions are reasonably possible and based on a proper evaluation of evidence, including the voluntary nature of confessions and the requirement for independent corroboration in criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Is a retracted confession sufficient for conviction without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does a trial court's failure to assess a confession's voluntariness justify a remand for rewriting the judgment?
  • What is the standard of proof required to set aside an acquittal in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Gaman vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 122 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar, U.D.C. and 46 others vs Chairman, WAPDA and 31995 PLC 548 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and 46 others vs Chairman, WAPDA and 3 others1995 PLC 223 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1995 SCMR 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15
  murderocular accountrelated witnessesweapon recoverypointation of accuseddeath sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, upholding the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Muhammad Akbar, for the murder of Mst. Tajal under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony inspired confidence despite being related witnesses, whether the recovery of the weapon was vitiated due to non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the firearm recovery on the accused's pointation fell under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Supreme Court held that related eye-witnesses whose presence is natural and whose testimony is corroborated by medical evidence, prompt FIR, and independent corroboration are reliable. The Court further held that section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to recoveries made pursuant to an accused's disclosure or pointation under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of respectable inhabitants of the locality render a weapon recovery illegal when it is made on the pointation of the accused?
  • Whether Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to a recovery made in consequence of information or pointation provided by an accused person?
  • Can related eye-witness testimony be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
  • Is a statement made by a witness to a third party immediately after an occurrence relevant under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Peshawar and 41995 PLC (C.S.) 349 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-06-05
  reversion from officiating rankcompulsory retirementdepartmental inquirypolice rulesdouble jeopardyshow-cause noticemisconductservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, challenged two separate orders: one reverting him from the rank of ASI to Head Constable, and another compulsorily retiring him from service. The core legal question was whether an officiating public servant can be reverted without a show-cause notice when the reversion is based on specific charges of misconduct, and whether subsequent departmental proceedings and punishments violated mandatory statutory procedures and the principle against double jeopardy. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal held that while an officiating appointment can normally be terminated without notice, doing so by way of penalty or on specific charges of misconduct requires a proper show-cause notice and adherence to prescribed inquiry procedures. The Tribunal found multiple procedural lapses, including the failure to serve a proper charge-sheet, reliance on an inquiry report that contradicted the specific charges, and subjecting the appellant to double jeopardy by punishing him twice for the same matters. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with full back benefits, subject to de novo proceedings if desired.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officiating civil servant can be reverted to a lower post without a show-cause notice when the reversion is based on specific charges of misconduct?
  • Does an inquiry officer exceed their mandate by recommending a major penalty based on general reputation rather than the specific charges contained in the statement of allegations?
  • Whether penalizing a public servant twice through reduction in rank and subsequent compulsory retirement constitutes double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the failure to specify the proposed major penalty in a show-cause notice vitiate subsequent departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Muhammad ChiraghK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Muhammad Charagh1995 CLC 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Shaikh And Another vs Rashid Ahmed Butt And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 624 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1995 MLD 505 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Others vs Sher Muhammad And Other1995 MLD 505 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and others vs Riaz Hussain and others1995 MLD 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Others vs Riaz Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Zahid Shakoor and another1995 PLD Supreme Court 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-10
  culpable homicidesudden fightheat of passionpremeditationcriminal appealself-defenceintention to kill
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, following an incident where the respondent killed the deceased during a sudden altercation over land usage. The core legal question was whether the respondent's act constituted murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the same Code. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to convict the respondent under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, dismissing the appellant's plea for a murder conviction. The Court held that the incident occurred during a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation, and the respondent did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. The key principle laid down is that where a killing occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation, and the offender does not act in a cruel or unusual manner or take undue advantage, the act falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does a killing committed during a sudden fight without premeditation constitute murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential requirements for an act to fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the accused lacked the intention to kill and acted without premeditation in a sudden quarrel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs The Information Secretary, Government of Pakistan and Chairman, Pak Television Corporation and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 399 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal And Other vs S.H.O. P.S. Sara-E-Sadhu Dist KhanewalK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 624 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajaib vs Khalid Hussain1995 PLD Azad J&K 5 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan vs The State and 6 others1995 P Cr. L J 147 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan vs Amanullah Khan Niazi and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Babar Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 500 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1995 MLD 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Munir Nabi Khan and 6 others1995 PLD Quetta 50 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-15
  educational malpracticeunfair meanscivil court jurisdictionnatural justicedisciplinary proceedingsacademic autonomyrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a student, challenged his rustication and failure in an examination paper due to alleged use of unfair means, seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction against the educational institution. The core legal questions were whether the civil court had jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings of an educational body governed by specific regulations, and whether the petitioner had been denied natural justice. The High Court held that the civil courts should not interfere with the internal disciplinary procedures of educational institutions when they act within their prescribed regulations, provided a fair opportunity of hearing is afforded. The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations of mala fides, noting that he had been given an opportunity to defend himself before the Examination Committee but failed to appear. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists under the relevant regulations, a civil suit is not the appropriate forum. The principle laid down is that courts will not substitute their judgment for that of academic bodies in disciplinary matters absent clear illegality or violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court interfere with the disciplinary decisions of an educational institution regarding the use of unfair means in examinations?
  • Does the failure to exhaust an efficacious statutory appellate remedy preclude a party from seeking relief through a civil suit?
  • Is a student entitled to challenge the findings of an Examination Committee in a civil court when the committee has followed the prescribed regulations and provided an opportunity for a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Munir Nabi Khan and 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 238 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Mst. Sameena Akhtar and another1995 CLC 1519 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16
  custody of minorwelfare of minorconstitutional jurisdictionguardianshipappellate interferencefamily court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order by the Additional District Judge-I, Quetta, which set aside a Family Court judgment granting custody of a minor to the petitioner-father. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in overturning the custody order and whether the High Court should interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction regarding findings of fact on the welfare of the minor. The High Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the petitioner failed to prove that the mother's custody was detrimental or that the minor lacked proper care or educational facilities. The Court emphasized that financial superiority of a father does not automatically entitle him to custody over the mother. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact made by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if potentially incorrect, do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless there is a patent illegality or misreading of evidence. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the welfare of the child is a factual determination best left to the trial courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the financial status of a father the sole or primary factor in determining the custody of a minor?
  • Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the welfare of a minor in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a court of competent jurisdiction's decision on a question of fact or law render it 'without lawful authority' if the decision is merely incorrect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Judge Family Court and others1995 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs (Mst) Sameena Akhtar And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 413 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Shah vs Additional District Judge, Daska and 31995 CLC 312 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan and anothers vs Muhammad Latif and another1995 CLC 1951 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-06-24
  co-sharerjoint propertyalienation by co-sharerspecific survey numberfractional sharepartitioncancellation of sale-deedexclusive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose out of a declaratory suit filed by respondent Muhammad Latif challenging a sale-deed executed by vendor Mst. Zubedha Begum in favour of the appellants. The vendor transferred 3 Kanals 2 Marlas and 4 Sersaies from a specific survey number without being in exclusive possession thereof, where her actual fractional entitlement was only 7 Marlas and 4.5 Sersaies. The primary legal issue was whether a co-sharer out of possession of a specific survey number in joint land can alienate land in excess of their fractional share in that survey number. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that a co-sharer not in exclusive possession of a specific parcel cannot transfer more than their fractional share in that specific survey number. Alienations exceeding such fractional share are void and liable to cancellation, whereas a co-sharer in exclusive possession can transfer specific land up to their overall entitlement in the Khewat, subject to partition adjustments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer who is out of possession of a specific survey number alienate more than their fractional share in that survey number?
  • Whether an unexhibited document produced for the first time during appellate arguments can be legally considered into evidence?
  • Can a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific parcel validly alienate it beyond their fractional share in that parcel if it does not exceed their overall entitlement in the joint Khata?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 375 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Bhatti vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 293 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and another vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Services and-General Administration Department, Quetta and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 567 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-26
  writ of quo warrantoinducting armed forces officersrelaxation of rulescivil service recruitmentjurisdiction barservice tribunalsdirect appointment BPS-19
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition (writ of quo warranto) challenged a notification dated 26-10-1991 issued by the Government of Balochistan, which relaxed rule 5 of the Balochistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1984 under rule 12 thereof to directly induct a serving Army Colonel (respondent No. 5) into BPS-19 on a regular basis at the top of the seniority list. The official respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The High Court rejected this objection, holding that an inquiry into the legal authority of an individual to hold a public office via quo warranto does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974. On the merits, the Court held that federal and provincial policy guidelines permit regular induction of lower ranks only, whereas officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above are eligible solely for re-employment on a contract basis. Furthermore, under the 1984 Rules, initial recruitment is confined to BPS-17 and higher grades are reserved for promotion. Relaxing rules could not create a direct appointment to BPS-19. The High Court declared the notification void and issued without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining a writ of quo warranto challenging an illegal induction into civil service?
  • Can a statutory rule empowering relaxation of recruitment rules be exercised to directly appoint an individual to a BPS-19 post reserved for promotion?
  • Can a serving Army officer of the rank of Colonel be inducted on a regular basis into the provincial civil service in violation of government induction policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs Government of Balochistan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 24 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab Alam Sindhu vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 710 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar and 7 others vs Noor Muhammad and another1995 CLC 744 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adalat vs Javaid and another1995 P Cr. L J 689 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-12-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Muhammad AsgharK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 556 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Muhammad Asghar and others1995 MLD 787 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Muhammad Asghar And Other1995 MLD 787 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas and others vs Sagheer Ahmed and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-14
  revision against acquittalretrialreappraisal of evidencemurderbenefit of doubtscope of revisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed an acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Gujrat, and remanded the case for retrial on a murder charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the scope and propriety of the High Court's revisional power in interfering with an order of acquittal by re-appreciating evidence, and whether remanding a case for retrial based on strong observations by the appellate court prejudices the trial judge. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has unfettered revisional powers to interfere with a perverse or legally flawed acquittal, it must not load the dice against the accused by making binding observations on the evidence. However, the petition was dismissed, with the clarification that the trial court on remand remains completely free to independently evaluate the evidence and express its own conclusions without being influenced by prior appellate observations. The key principle established is that an order of retrial upon revision against acquittal must leave the trial court unfettered to independently adjudicate the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court re-appraise evidence in a revision petition against an order of acquittal?
  • Whether an order of retrial by the High Court improperly prejudices the trial judge when strong views on evidence are expressed?
  • Are the powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with an acquittal unfettered?
  • Must a trial court strictly follow the observations made by a revisional court when a case is remanded for retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamma.D Riaz vs The State1995 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10
  leave to appealhostile witnessdelayed FIRcommutation of sentencemurder convictionevidentiary reliabilitypardon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Riaz, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was originally convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Allah Rakha and sentenced to death. The High Court dismissed his appeal but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment while granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal, contending that the two eyewitnesses mentioned in the First Information Report were declared hostile after testifying that they did not witness the occurrence. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the presence of the complainant, the sister of the deceased, was unnatural due to her residence in a different village, and highlights an inordinate 12-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report without explanation. Additionally, the petitioner notes that the complainant has submitted an application stating she has pardoned the accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these submissions regarding the evidentiary reliability and the legal implications of the pardon.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of eyewitnesses who have been declared hostile provide a sufficient basis for a murder conviction?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the First Information Report is lodged with an unexplained 12-hour delay?
  • What is the legal effect of a pardon submitted by the complainant in a murder case on the appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Javed and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-13
  post-arrest bailcriminal procedureF.I.R. contradictionfurther inquirymurderSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's order declining post-arrest bail to the petitioners, Muhammad Javed and Shamrez, in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No. 397/94. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the material contradictions between the initial First Information Report and the complainant's subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where entirely different persons were initially implicated due to an enmity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the major discrepancy in the complainant's stance, the lack of immediate eye-witnesses to the crime, and the delayed examination of circumstantial witnesses brought the petitioners' case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the appellants, laying down that material contradictions in ocular accounts and unexplained delays in recording witness statements create reasonable grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there are material contradictions between the initial F.I.R. and a subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the unexplained delay in examining prosecution witnesses entitle an accused person to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Whether shifting stances by a complainant regarding the identity of the accused creates a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muh Ammad Yar vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R 1997 Civil Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mughulbaz vs The State1995 MLD 98 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mughul Baz vs The State1995 MLD 98 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mudabbir Ali Qureshi vs Mrs. Surriya Mudabbir and others1995 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ahmad Alias Bashari vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali vs Fazal Muhammad and another1995 PLD Supreme Court 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-04
  fraudsection 12(2) CPCfinal judgmentwithdrawal of leave to appealjurisdictionpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  These two civil appeals addressed whether an order by the Supreme Court dismissing petitions for special leave to appeal as withdrawn constitutes a final judgment, decree, or order under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby transferring the jurisdiction to entertain an application alleging fraud from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The appellant had filed applications under section 12(2) before the Lahore High Court to recall its previous appellate decisions on the grounds of fraudulent manipulation of a power of attorney, but the High Court returned the applications, holding that the Supreme Court had last dealt with the matter when leave petitions were filed and withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that orders merely permitting the withdrawal of leave petitions do not amount to final judgments, decrees, or orders within the meaning of section 12(2) C.P.C., as they neither decided issues on merits nor closed the litigation with finality. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and directed the High Court to entertain and decide the appellant's applications in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition for leave to appeal as withdrawn amount to a final judgment, decree, or order under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Which court has jurisdiction under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to entertain an application challenging a judgment on the ground of fraud when a leave to appeal petition against that judgment was withdrawn?
  • Do orders permitting the withdrawal of petitions for special leave to appeal constitute a final disposal of a case for the purposes of attracting the bar or jurisdiction under section 12(2) C.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali and 5 others vs Mst. Noor Jehana and 3 others1995 CLC 1701 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muamber vs Assistant Political Agent and 3 others1995 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01
  criminal trialtribunal procedurePATA Regulationright of cross-examinationillegal convictionremand for trialmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial conducted by a Tribunal under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Regulation. The core legal question was whether the appellant had been convicted in a lawful manner, specifically concerning the procedure followed by the Tribunal where members relied on police statements recorded outside the trial and secret inquiries without affording an opportunity of cross-examination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that relying on unexamined statements and secret inquiries violates the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 9 of the PATA Regulation, rendering the trial and conviction illegal. The Court laid down the principle that a Tribunal must record evidence directly and permit cross-examination, and noted that the PATA Regulation had previously been declared violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the case remanded to the Sessions Judge for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Tribunal under the PATA Regulation can base its findings of guilt on police statements not recorded before it?
  • Is an accused entitled to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are considered by the Tribunal?
  • Does a Tribunal have the authority under the PATA Regulation to conduct secret inquiries from external sources?
  • What is the effect of procedural illegality by a Tribunal on a subsequent conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.) Qamar Loan & 5 Others vs Kashmirian (Pvt.) Limited, And 6 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst.) Fazal Bi And 6 Others vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Govt. of Aj&K Council, Muzaffarbad And 5 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1175 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha Bibi vs Abdul Samad and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1730 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-17
  bail cancellationplea of alibiprima facie caseheinous offencesprohibitory clausekidnappingcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, in a case involving serious offences including kidnapping and grievous hurt. The core legal question was whether the respondent's plea of alibi, supported by documents suggesting he was on an official tour, warranted bail despite the existence of incriminating material connecting him to the alleged offences. The Court held that the bail should be cancelled. It reasoned that while a plea of alibi is a valid defence, it cannot be determined at the bail stage based on affidavits or documents alone, as this would amount to a premature pre-judgment of the case. The Court established that where a prima facie case exists and the offences are of a heinous nature falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law, the plea of alibi must be tested through evidence at trial rather than being used to secure bail. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, emphasizing that the concession of bail should not be granted when sufficient incriminating material is present.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be determined at the bail stage to grant relief to an accused?
  • Should bail be cancelled if a prima facie case exists for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to pre-judge the merits of a defence plea of alibi during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Begum vs M/s. Long Life Builders1995 CLC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida vs The State1995 MLD 1517 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and others1995 CLC 663 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Begum and 6 others vs Muhammad Ismail1995 CLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-03
  Benami transactionburden of proofcivil revisionregistered sale deedadverse inferenceownershippossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the nature of a registered sale deed dated 20-11-1962. The petitioners alleged that the transaction was Benami, asserting that their predecessor-in-interest, Taj Din, was the actual purchaser, while the respondent, Muhammad Ismail, was merely an ostensible owner. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had sufficiently discharged the burden of proving the Benami nature of the sale. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to provide cogent, definitive evidence to substantiate their claim. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof rests entirely on the party asserting a Benami transaction, which must be established through legal testimony rather than suspicion. Key principles laid down include that the court must evaluate the source of purchase money, possession, custody of title deeds, and the parties' subsequent conduct. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a party's failure to testify regarding matters within their personal knowledge warrants an adverse inference, thereby upholding the validity of the registered sale deed.

  Questions settled

  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a registered sale transaction is Benami?
  • Can a court draw an adverse inference against a party who fails to appear as a witness to support their own claim?
  • What factors should a court consider when determining whether a transaction is Benami?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of a sale transaction subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Akhtar vs Secretary to Government of Sindh, Health1995 PLC (C.S.) 1132 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Akhtar vs Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh, Karachi and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1127 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →