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.
- Mrs. Naseem Firdous vs Punjab Small Industries Corporation through Managing Director and 3 others1995 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Director (Design) at the Punjab Small Industries Corporation, challenged an advertisement for a Designer/Modeller position that restricted eligibility to 'male only' candidates. The petitioner alleged discrimination based on sex, violating Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The respondents argued the petition was barred by laches and contended that the job's nature—requiring extensive travel, late hours, and dark-room work—necessitated a male incumbent. The Court held that the restriction was discriminatory and lacked a reasonable nexus to the job's requirements. It emphasized that modern professional standards no longer support the exclusion of women based on stereotypical assumptions about domestic responsibilities or physical capability. The Court ruled that the constitutional mandate of equality prohibits such gender-based exclusion unless the duties are demonstrably impossible for the other sex to perform. Consequently, the Court declared the appointment of the respondent void, rejected the laches defense as inapplicable to discriminatory state actions, and directed the authorities to fill the vacancy through a non-discriminatory process.
Questions settled- Does restricting a public service position to 'male only' candidates violate the constitutional guarantee of equality?
- Can a state department justify gender-based exclusion from employment by citing stereotypical assumptions about domestic responsibilities or physical limitations?
- Is the defense of laches applicable to a writ petition challenging a discriminatory state action?
- Under what circumstances can specific posts be reserved for members of one sex under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Mrs. Kulsoom Ara vs The Controller of Examination, University of the Punjab, Lahore1995 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Kishwar Malik vs Lt.Col. M. Sadiq Malik1995 PLD Supreme Court 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit for declaration filed by the respondent-husband claiming to be the real owner of a residential bungalow in Islamabad, alleging that the appellant-wife was merely a benamidar. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court and High Court successively dismissed the appellant's appeal and revision, upholding the concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the concurrent findings suffered from misreading of evidence and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under the Capital Development Authority law. Upon independent assessment, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were well-founded on evidence, noting that the purchase price was paid entirely from the respondent's bank account and that the appellant possessed no independent source of income. The Court further ruled that Section 49-E of the Capital Development Authority Act did not bar the civil court's jurisdiction because the suit involved a private dispute determining the true ownership and nature of the transaction rather than questioning the legality of any action taken by the Authority. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a benami transaction can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction without proof of material misreading of evidence?
- Does Section 49-E of the Capital Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1966 bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to determine the true ownership and benami nature of a property between private parties?
- What are the determinative factors for establishing whether a property purchased in the name of a spouse is a benami transaction?
- Mrs. Khursheed Agha vs Mst. Hajra Bi through Legal Heirs and others1995 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Khursheed Agha vs Mst. Hajra Bi Through Legal Heirs And Other1995 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Hajra Begum and 2 others vs Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi1995 PLD Karachi 603 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Ghazala Shamim vs Mrs. Shahnaz AhmedK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 69 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Bilquis Ishaq vs Ambassador of Pakistan in Saudi Arabia, Jeddah1995 PLC (C.S.) 834 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Batool Bai vs Muhammad Arshad Ali Khan1995 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Akhtar Usman vs Accountantgeneral, Pakistan Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1995 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Headmistress in a Federal Government school, surrendered her official accommodation in March 1981 and began drawing a house rent allowance while living in a house provided to her husband by his employer, the Pakistan Science Foundation. The Accountant General Pakistan Revenue objected and ordered recovery of the allowance. After exhausting departmental remedies and a civil suit, the petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal in limine on the ground of delay. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of a federal government employee to house rent allowance when residing in accommodation provided to their spouse by an autonomous body, and whether the service appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the issue of limitation in light of the applicable Office Memorandum regulating house rent allowances for spouses employed by the government and autonomous bodies respectively.
Questions settled- Is a Federal Government employee entitled to house rent allowance when residing in accommodation provided to their spouse by an autonomous body?
- Whether an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal can be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay without examining the merits?
- Mrs. Akhtar Usman vs Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Headmistress in a Federal Government school, challenged an order by the Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenue, directing the recovery of house rent allowance she had received. The petitioner had been living in accommodation provided to her husband, an employee of an autonomous body, while simultaneously drawing house rent allowance. After exhausting departmental remedies and failing before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal in limine due to delay, she sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to the house rent allowance under the prevailing government policy regarding spouses employed by different entities, and whether the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed her appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the specific provisions of Office Memorandum No. F.3(32)-R-13/79, which allows a Federal Government employee to claim house rent allowance even if their spouse, employed by an autonomous body, receives housing benefits. The Court held that the matter requires further examination regarding the limitation period applied by the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Is a Federal Government employee entitled to house rent allowance if their spouse is employed by an autonomous body and provided with accommodation?
- Does the receipt of housing benefits by a spouse employed in an autonomous body disqualify a Federal Government employee from claiming house rent allowance?
- Can a service appeal be dismissed in limine solely on the ground of delay without considering the underlying entitlement?
- Moud Nasir Qureshi vs M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi and another1995 PLC 89 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mosam Shah and 12 others vs Mir Piyao Khan Alias Piyao Khan and 101995 CLC 1497 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Moreed Baz vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 504 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Montessori Home vs Muhammad Shekoh Salim1995 CLC 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's appeal against an order of eviction from a residential bungalow situated in Karachi, passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord established a genuine personal requirement for the premises and whether the tenant committed a default in the payment of rent. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove a bona fide personal requirement, noting the failure of the primary claimant to enter the witness box, contradictions regarding ownership transfers, and the availability of alternative accommodation. The Court further held that no default occurred since the landlords failed to provide their proper addresses in eviction notices, leaving the tenant justified in depositing the rent in court. The appeal was accepted, the eviction order was set aside, and the rent application was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that a landlord's claim of personal need must be supported by genuine, uncontradicted evidence and good faith.
Questions settled- Whether failure of the landlord to enter the witness box to depose about personal need renders the claim unproved?
- Is a tenant justified in depositing rent in court when landlords fail to disclose their correct addresses in notices?
- Does ownership of alternative flats by the landlords affect their claim of personal bona fide need for the demised premises?
- What is the legal effect of material contradictions and suppression of facts by a landlord in a rent eviction case?
- Montessori Home Through Its Director, Begum Farida Fazal vs Muhammad1995 MLD 431 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Momeen Khan and anothers vs Supreme Appellate Court, Peshawar and 5 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a direct petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court, Peshawar, which had set aside the petitioners' acquittal by the Speedy Trials Court and convicted them under sections 302/34 and 337-A(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and other terms. The core legal question was whether a direct petition under Article 184(3) is maintainable against a final judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court rendered pursuant to the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1991 and Article 212-B of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 212-B of the Constitution places a complete bar on the jurisdiction of any other court, including the Supreme Court, in respect of proceedings and judgments of Speedy Trial Courts and the Supreme Appellate Court, rendering such judgments final. The key principle laid down is that judgments of the Supreme Appellate Court under the constitutional framework of Article 212-B and the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1991 are final and immune from challenge in ordinary or direct constitutional proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether a direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable against a judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court?
- Does Article 212-B of the Constitution bar the Supreme Court from entertaining challenges against proceedings of Speedy Trial Courts or the Supreme Appellate Court?
- Can a judgment rendered by the Supreme Appellate Court under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance be challenged in any other court?
- Mola Bakhsh vs Mian Muhammad Hussain1995 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of agricultural land. The petitioner challenged the decree granted to the respondent, arguing that the suit was barred by the doctrine of partial pre-emption because the respondent allegedly failed to seek relief regarding the vendor's share in the Shamilat Deh and irrigation rights. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the vendor possessed no share in the Shamilat Deh nor any independent irrigation rights. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent had offered to pay the full consideration amount paid by the vendee, negating any intent to exclude portions of the property. The Court held that even if there were an omission, it was unintentional and did not constitute partial pre-emption, as the respondent sought the entire bargain. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that a suit for pre-emption is not defeated by an unintentional omission where the pre-emptor offers the full consideration for the entire property sold.
Questions settled- Does an unintentional omission to include certain rights in a pre-emption suit constitute partial pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emption suit be defeated when the pre-emptor offers the full consideration paid by the vendee?
- Is a suit for pre-emption maintainable if the vendor had no actual share in the claimed rights like Shamilat Deh?
- Mohibullah, Chief Officer, Town Committee, Amangerh and others vs Mansoor Khan, Planning Officer, District Council, Mardan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' challenge to a combined seniority list of Local Council Service (LCS) officers. The core legal question was whether the department erred in placing the private respondents, who were appointed as Planning Officers in the Integrated Rural Development Programme and subsequently absorbed into the LCS, above the petitioners in the combined seniority list. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the posts occupied by the respondents were explicitly designated as part of the Administration Branch of the service under the relevant notification. Consequently, the Court held that the combined seniority list was prepared correctly. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents held BPS-16 positions as of 1984, whereas the petitioners were promoted to BPS-16 significantly later, justifying the respondents' superior placement. The key principle laid down is that where posts are statutorily or administratively designated as part of a specific service branch, the seniority of officers holding those posts must be determined according to that unified service structure, regardless of departmental sub-specializations.
Questions settled- Can officers from different departmental branches be placed on a combined seniority list if their posts are designated as part of the same service branch?
- Does the date of promotion to a specific pay scale determine seniority relative to officers who held that scale at an earlier date?
- Is a combined seniority list valid if the underlying posts were created as part of the same administrative service structure?
- Mohib-E-Ali vs Shahid Hafeez1995 MLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mohib E Ali vs Shahid Hafeez1995 MLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Siddique vs PK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 12 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz Ahmad vs Asghar AliK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mohabbat Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1995 PLC 667 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the petitioner's dismissal from government service as a driver. The core legal question concerned the petitioner's status—whether he was a 'civil servant' or a 'workman'—and the maintainability of his grievance petition. The Court held that a driver, being a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, such employees fall outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. However, the Court dismissed the petition on the merits and procedural grounds. It ruled that the petitioner was disentitled to relief due to gross laches, as the petition was filed over a year after the Labour Court's dismissal. Additionally, the Court found that the departmental proceedings were conducted fairly, satisfying the requirements of natural justice, and that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically bar departmental action. The key principle established is that drivers are 'workmen' rather than 'civil servants,' and that constitutional relief in service matters is barred by unreasonable delay.
Questions settled- Is a government driver considered a 'civil servant' or a 'workman' under the Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does the acquittal of a government employee in criminal proceedings automatically bar departmental disciplinary action?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches in service matters?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, exclude a driver from the category of 'civil servant'?
- Moazam Shah vs Mohsan Shah and another1995 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby the respondent's sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was reduced from death to life imprisonment. The High Court had discarded the Fire Arm Expert's report due to the delayed dispatch of crime empties and found the prosecution's immediate motive unproven given a five-month hiatus without incident. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment by the High Court was in conformity with established case-law and guidelines regarding corroborative evidence of motive and expert findings. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the propriety of the sentence reduction and directed both the appeals to be heard together. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will examine whether appellate courts properly evaluate corroborative material, such as expert reports and admissions regarding motive, when altering sentences in capital punishment cases.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in discarding the Fire Arm Expert's report on the ground of delayed dispatch of crime empties?
- Does an admission in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a previous scuffle constitute satisfactory corroboration of motive?
- Whether the reduction of a sentence from death to life imprisonment was in conformity with the guidelines enunciated in judicial precedents?
- Mistri Muhammad Ramzan vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others1995 PLD Quetta 5 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a civil suit instituted in 1983 seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a residential property in Quetta. The plaintiff later sought to amend the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial court and, on revision, by the District Judge in February 1993 on the ground that the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit after eight years of litigation. However, a successor District Judge subsequently entertained a review petition and allowed the amendment, prompting the current constitutional challenge. The core legal questions concern the proper scope of review powers under Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., and the permissibility of amending plaints to introduce entirely new causes of action. The Balochistan High Court held that the successor judge acted without lawful authority by using review powers to overturn a considered decision merely on a purported failure to follow precedent, without satisfying statutory review criteria. The Court reaffirmed that review cannot be used as an appeal against one's own judgment and that amendments introducing a new cause of action or changing the suit's complexion after prolonged delay are impermissible.
Questions settled- Whether a successor judge can exercise review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reverse a considered decision of a predecessor without satisfying the statutory grounds for review?
- Can a plaintiff be permitted to amend a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to introduce an entirely new cause of action and change the fundamental nature of the suit after a prolonged delay?
- Does a misinterpretation of law or failure to follow a precedent constitute a sufficient ground for review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Miss Shazia Latif vs Vicechancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore1995 CLC 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Miss Shazia Lath vs University' of Punjab, Etc.K.LR. 1997 Civil Cases 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
- Miss Shazia Altaf vs The Secretary Health Department Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 494 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Miss Shazia Altaf vs The Director General Health Services, Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 7 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Miss Shamila Iftikhar vs Selection Committee and 2 others1995 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a Constitution petition concerning the rejection of the appellant's application for admission to Bolan Medical College against a seat reserved for the bona fide residents of District Killa Saifullah. The core legal question was whether a domicile certificate serves as conclusive proof of permanent residency for admission purposes and whether the Selection Committee possesses the authority to verify such claims. The Supreme Court held that a domicile certificate is not conclusive proof of permanent residency. The Court affirmed that the Selection Committee is competent to conduct independent inquiries, including referring matters to local authorities, to satisfy itself regarding a candidate's actual residency. The Court found no error in the Committee's decision, which was based on evidence that the appellant's family did not reside in the district and that the appellant had previously declared a different permanent address. The key principle established is that admission authorities may look behind a domicile certificate to determine the bona fide nature of a residency claim.
Questions settled- Is a domicile certificate conclusive proof of permanent residency for the purpose of admission to a medical college?
- Does a Selection Committee have the authority to verify the actual residency of a candidate despite the production of a domicile certificate?
- Does the mere ownership of land in a district establish a candidate's permanent residency for admission purposes?
- Miss Shahnaz Akhtar vs The Government of Punjab and another1995 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Miss Shaghufta Maan vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur and others1995 CLC 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
- Miss Sakina Begum- vs The Selection Committee for Bolan Medical1995 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition regarding the refusal of admission to the First Year of Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the academic year 1989-90. The core legal question was whether the appellant suffered discrimination when other candidates educated outside Balochistan were granted admission, and whether the Selection Committee properly exercised its discretion under Article 30 of the Prospectus. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to show cogent reasons for not studying within Balochistan as required by the Prospectus, and that mere fact of studying outside the province does not establish discrimination unless identical reasons were presented and treated differently. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that discretionary exemptions from educational qualification rules require proof of cogent reasons, and claims of discrimination necessitate proof of identical factual positioning.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with the discretionary refusal of admission by a Selection Committee under an educational prospectus without showing perversity?
- Does obtaining education outside the province create a presumption of discrimination in college admissions when other similarly situated candidates are granted exemptions?
- What constitutes a case of discrimination based on differential treatment in administrative selections?
- Miss Sajida Par Veen vs Principal/Dean, Khyber Medical College and1995 CLC 1867 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
- Miss Nosheen Asghar vs University of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
- Miss Maryam Saba vs Dy. D.E.O. and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
- Miss Hina Jilani, Director of A.G.H.S. Legal Aid Cell vs Sohail Butt1995 PLD Lahore 151 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the recovery of a one-year-old minor girl from her father. The core legal question concerned whether the mother, following the dissolution of her marriage, could be denied custody of the minor on the grounds that she intended to return to her native country, Tashkent, and whether the High Court could exercise summary jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the existence of alternative remedies before the Family Court. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction in custody matters is parental and distinct from that of the Family Court. The Court ruled that under Muslim Personal Law, the mother possesses a preferential right of Hizanat (custody) for a minor girl of tender age. Furthermore, the mother is not disqualified from custody by returning to her native city post-divorce, provided the marriage was contracted there and the father’s access is guaranteed, which was ensured through formal undertakings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor despite the availability of a remedy before the Family Court?
- Does a mother lose her right of Hizanat under Muslim Personal Law if she intends to take the minor to her native country after the dissolution of marriage?
- Is a petition for habeas corpus regarding the custody of a minor maintainable if filed by a person other than the aggrieved parent?
- Does the removal of a minor by the mother to her native country after the dissolution of marriage violate Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Miss Ghazala Saeed vs Secretary, Labour and Manpower Department1995 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel requested to withdraw the petition, stating an intention to pursue an Intra-Court Appeal in the High Court instead. The counsel explained that the Intra-Court Appeal remedy had not been previously availed due to the court's vacation period, which had since concluded. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appropriate legal remedy available under the law in the High Court. The judgment establishes the principle that a petitioner may withdraw a petition before the Supreme Court if they intend to exhaust alternative, more appropriate remedies, such as an Intra-Court Appeal, which were previously unavailable due to procedural circumstances like court vacations.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a Supreme Court petition to pursue an Intra-Court Appeal in the High Court?
- Is a petition dismissible as 'not pressed' when the petitioner intends to pursue an alternative legal remedy?
- Miss Fozia Mir vs Controller of Examination1995 CLC 114 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
- Miss Bilques Akhtar vs M/s. Pakistan International Airlines1995 PLC 366 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Misbahullah Khan vs Mst. Memoona Taskinuddin1995 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from an order of the Rent Controller, upheld by the High Court, striking off the tenant's defence and granting eviction under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 for failing to deposit rent in the National Bank of Pakistan by the 5th of the month, as directed in a tentative rent order.
The core legal questions concerned whether a tentative rent order can be issued when eviction is not sought on the ground of default, where tentative rent must be directed to be deposited under Section 17(8), and whether a technical non-compliance arising from ambiguity or confusion amounts to a wilful default justifying striking off of defence.
The Supreme Court held that tentative rent orders are mandatory in all eviction proceedings regardless of whether default is alleged. However, Section 17(8) strictly mandates deposit 'in his office' (the Rent Controller's office). Where the Controller deviates by ordering bank deposit, leading to bona fide confusion and a technical delay, striking off defence is unwarranted. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller pass a tentative rent order under Section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 even if eviction is not sought on the ground of default?
- Does Section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 require the Rent Controller to direct deposit of rent specifically in his office rather than a bank?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off under Section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 for a non-wilful, technical failure to deposit rent caused by confusion over bank deposit instructions?
- Mirza Muhammad Sabir Baig vs Muiiammei) SaeedK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 399 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-25Read full judgment →
- Mirza Mansoor Beg vs Haji Karamat Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mirza Mansoor Baig vs Haji Karamat Ali and others1995 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mirza Kalb-I-Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
- Mirza Kalb-I-Abbas Beig vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1995 MLD 992 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
- Mirza Kalb I Abbas Beig vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary1995 MLD 992 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
- Mirza Jameel Ashraf vs Mst. Anis Begum1995 MLD 827 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mirza Ayub Baig, Etc. vs (Mst.) Ruqia BegumK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 729 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mirza Anwar Beg vs Home Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore1995 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
- Mirza Anwar Baig vs Abdul RabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 339 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
- Mirza and 3 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mirza Afzal Baig vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Section Officer, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his service appeal regarding a claim for promotion to BPS-18. The petitioner, who had voluntarily retired, contended he was entitled to promotion retrospectively from 1986, similar to his colleagues. The Tribunal had dismissed his appeal on two primary grounds: first, that the appeal was filed well beyond the statutory limitation period of 120 days following his departmental representation, with no sufficient grounds for condonation of delay; and second, that the matter related to the 'determination of fitness for promotion,' which is barred from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the proviso to the Service Tribunals Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or error in the Tribunal's judgment and determined that no question of public importance was involved. Consequently, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding both the limitation bar and the jurisdictional exclusion concerning promotion matters.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the determination of fitness for promotion?
- Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal maintainable if filed after the expiration of the 120-day period following a departmental representation?
- Can a service appeal be entertained if it lacks sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay?
- Miran Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 88 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mir Qamar-Ul-Zaman vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1995 CLC 1982 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the High Court's order upholding the dismissal of the appellant's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Agricultural Development Bank. The appellant sought to restrain the bank from recovering an alleged loan amount, claiming no liability existed. The trial court had dismissed the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the lower courts erred by considering the defendant's objections rather than relying solely on the plaint's averments to determine the existence of a cause of action or jurisdiction. The Court clarified that for the purposes of Order VII, Rule 11, the court must presume the plaint's allegations are true. Furthermore, it emphasized that the bar under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act only applies if recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue have been formally initiated, which was not substantiated here. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
Questions settled- Does the court determine the existence of a cause of action based on the written statement or the plaint?
- Is the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 equivalent to the dismissal of a suit?
- Under what circumstances does the bar of jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act apply to civil suits?
- Must an authority determine that an arrear is due before initiating recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue?
- Mir Murtaza Bhutto vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application filed by Mir Murtaza Bhutto before the Sindh High Court, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 121-A and 122 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution's weak material, when coupled with an allegation of prolonged absconsion, was sufficient to deny bail, and whether the principle of consistency applied given that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the prosecution conceded that its primary pieces of evidence—including a broadcast transcript, co-accused confessions, and statements under section 164—were insufficient to sustain a conviction, the mere allegation of absconsion, especially when the applicant had surrendered and the trial had been protracted without progress, did not warrant the denial of bail. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency with co-accused who were released on similar evidence, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged absconsion alone is sufficient to deny bail when the remaining prosecution evidence is prima facie insufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Does the principle of consistency warrant granting bail to an accused whose co-accused, facing similar allegations and evidence, have already been enlarged on bail?
- Can an unsigned transcript of a media interview monitored by a third party be considered legal evidence in a criminal trial for the purpose of withholding bail?
- Does protracted delay in trial proceedings without the fault of the accused constitute a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Mir Muhammad vs The State1995 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan upholding the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life for murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, given by related witnesses and challenged on grounds of discrepancies regarding firing distance and absence of blackening on wounds, was sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies in estimating distance among eye-witnesses are natural, that medical jurisprudence confirms the absence of blackening is consistent with shots fired from beyond three feet, and that positive forensic reports regarding recovered weapon and empties provide sufficient corroboration. The key principle laid down is that related eye-witness testimony, when consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is fully reliable to sustain a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies among eye-witnesses regarding the distance from which a firearm was discharged are fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does the absence of blackening around gunshot wounds necessarily contradict eye-witness testimony regarding firing distance?
- Can related eye-witnesses be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Does a positive firearm expert report matching recovered empties with an accused's weapon provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony?
- Mir Muhammad vs The State and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 2085 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a habeas corpus petition concerning the detention of a woman, Mst. Sakina, in Darul Aman. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate, before whom the detenue was produced for a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possessed the authority to remand her to Darul Aman against her will, despite her claim of being major, pubert, and married. The Court found that the Magistrate’s actions were improper, as the detenue was not an accused and had consistently expressed her desire to reside with her husband. The Court held that the detention was illegal and ordered her immediate release. The key principle laid down is that a woman who is pubert and sui juris, and who has contracted a valid marriage of her own free will, cannot be forcibly detained in Darul Aman by a Magistrate, regardless of pending criminal allegations of abduction filed by her family. The Court emphasized that such an adult individual has the fundamental right to liberty and to choose her place of residence.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate remand a woman to Darul Aman against her will when she is not an accused in the criminal case?
- Does a woman who is pubert and sui juris have the right to choose her own residence despite allegations of abduction by her family?
- Is a Magistrate authorized to detain a witness in Darul Aman while proceedings under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are pending?
- Mir Azhar Jabbar vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 507 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mir Azam Khan vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mir Ahmad and anothers vs Fazal Ellahi and another1995 MLD 1583 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Ahmad And Another vs Fazal Ellahi And Another1995 MLD 1583 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
- Minocha Bros. P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 163 204 I T R 628 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
- Millat Tractors Ltd. vs Rahim Bakhsh1995 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Millac Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindhh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd, KarachiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 263 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Micro Electronics International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sohail Ahmad and 51995 CLC 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Tariq Waheed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mian Ranjha vs The State1995 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal from jail was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of his relative. The petitioner raised three main contentions: the non-recovery of empty cartridges from the crime scene, an alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report, and a claim that a key eye-witness was present in Bahawalpur rather than at the crime scene in Khushab. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the First Information Report was lodged promptly and that, in a broad-daylight occurrence involving a single accused, minor delays are inconsequential. The Court ruled that the non-recovery of incriminating material from the spot does not render the prosecution case doubtful if it is otherwise proved by credible ocular evidence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the challenge to the eye-witness's presence, finding that the alleged admission was a subsequent, unauthorized insertion in the trial record.
Questions settled- Does the non-recovery of empty cartridges or other incriminating material from the crime scene render the prosecution case doubtful if credible ocular evidence is available?
- What is the legal effect of a minor delay in lodging a First Information Report in a broad-daylight occurrence involving a single accused?
- How should a court treat an alleged admission of absence by an eye-witness in a trial record where there are indications of subsequent unauthorized additions to the text?
- Mian Muhammad Usman vs A.U. Saleem, Directorgeneral, L.Da. and 71995 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Usman vs A.U. Saleem Director General L.D.a, And OtherK.L.R. 1995Criminal Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Tufail vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 21995 SCMR 1197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's consent to vacate the premises, recorded during ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, was voluntary or obtained through judicial coercion. The petitioner alleged that the Rent Controller pressured him into a compromise to expedite the disposal of the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Court, and the High Court, all of which had rejected the petitioner's claim of coercion. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment order, being based on the petitioner's own consent, was valid and that there was no evidence of judicial coercion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The principle laid down is that a consent-based order in rent proceedings, where the tenant voluntarily agrees to vacate, is binding and cannot be set aside on unsubstantiated allegations of judicial coercion.
Questions settled- Can an ejectment order based on a tenant's consent be challenged on the grounds of judicial coercion?
- Does a concurrent finding by lower courts regarding the voluntariness of a compromise warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs Ch. Muhammad Altaf Hussain, Governor of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves three consolidated writ petitions challenging the appointment of Ch. Muhammad Altaf Hussain as Governor of Punjab by the President of Pakistan. The petitioners contended that because the respondent had previously served as Governor within the preceding two years, he was in the 'service of Pakistan' and thus disqualified under Article 63(k) of the Constitution from being elected to the National Assembly, which consequently disqualified him from being appointed as Governor under Article 101(2). The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that holders of high Constitutional offices (such as the Governor, President, and Judges of the superior courts) are distinct from persons in the 'service of Pakistan' whose terms are regulated under Article 240. The Court further held that 'qualifications' under Article 62 and 'disqualifications' under Article 63 are distinct legal concepts; thus, the disqualifications in Article 63 cannot be imported into the eligibility criteria of Article 101(2) which only references qualifications.
Questions settled- Is the office of the Governor of a Province an office in the 'service of Pakistan' within the meaning of Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are the disqualifications enumerated in Article 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applicable when determining whether a person is qualified to be appointed as Governor under Article 101(2)?
- What is the legal distinction between 'qualifications' and 'disqualifications' under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the definition of 'service of Pakistan' in Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be applied rigidly to override the specific context of other substantive constitutional provisions?
- Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The Special Court and another1995 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Aslam vs The Auditor-General of Pakistan, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a departmental notice seeking to recover salary payments from the petitioner's pension. The petitioner had continued working as an Accounts Officer beyond his recorded superannuation date pursuant to an interim status quo order granted in a prior petition concerning date of birth correction. Upon final retirement, the respondents sought to recover the emoluments drawn between the original superannuation date and the actual retirement date, while challenging the petition's maintainability under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court rejected the jurisdictional objection, holding that an appeal to the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 lies only against a final departmental order, which was absent. On the merits, the Court held that since the petitioner had actively rendered services and performed duties, the department could not recover the salary drawn, irrespective of the underlying dispute over continuation in service. The impugned recovery demand was declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can an employer recover salary from a retired civil servant's pension for a period during which actual services were rendered pursuant to an interim court order?
- Is a civil servant entitled to receive emoluments for duties actually performed even if there was a dispute regarding their entitlement to continue in service?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction when no final order of a departmental authority exists to enable an appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan1995 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
- Miss Zaffar Fatima Rizvi vs Syed Saleem RazaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 86 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mian Khadim Hussain vs Mahboob Elahi Khawaja and another1995 CLC 63 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mian Gul Jan vs Muhammad Ali Jan and another1995 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had refused post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Mian Gul Jan, while granting bail to his co-accused in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' refusal of bail, arguing that the prosecution's version of events, specifically regarding the manner of firing and the site plan, was implausible and inconsistent with the physical evidence. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on these evidentiary contentions. The Court held that the petitioner's arguments required a deep appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Noting that the deceased had specifically charged the petitioner with firing in the First Information Report, the Court concluded that the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretion in refusing bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that bail cannot be granted where the accused is specifically implicated by the victim's dying declaration.
Questions settled- Can a court appreciate evidence regarding the plausibility of a site plan at the bail stage?
- Is a specific charge of firing in a First Information Report sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the lower courts have exercised discretion in refusing bail based on the victim's statement?
- Mian Ghulam Yaseen vs S.H.O., Police Station Chehal Yak, DistrictK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 581 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Ghulam Muhammad Ahmed Khan Maneka vs President of Islamic1995 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment by the Special Court disqualifying the appellant from parliamentary membership for seven years under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a former Federal Minister, committed misconduct by abusing his official position to secure loans and interest waivers for a private company. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court’s findings were based on a disregard of material evidence. Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that the loans were obtained with proper institutional approval and that no interest waivers or concessions were actually granted to the company. The Court clarified that proceedings under the Order are civil in nature, not quasi-criminal. Furthermore, it established that provisions regarding the forfeiture of franchise must be strictly construed, and a finding of misconduct requires positive evidence. A mere request for the consideration of financial relief does not, per se, constitute misconduct.
Questions settled- Are proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977, civil or quasi-criminal in nature?
- Does a request by a public official for the consideration of financial relief for a company constitute misconduct under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977?
- How should provisions regarding the forfeiture of franchise be interpreted by a court?
- Mian Farooq Ahmad Sheikh And Other vs Musstehkam CementK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 108 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Ejaz Shafi vs Syed Ali Ashraf Shah and 11 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an election dispute concerning the National Assembly seat NA-184, Karachi West I. The Election Tribunal had previously set aside the appellant's election and declared the respondent the winner, relying on a recount report submitted by the Deputy Election Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal could delegate the authority to invalidate ballot papers to an official without personally verifying the validity of those votes. The Supreme Court held that the Election Tribunal erred by acting upon the recount report in its totality without independently checking or examining the ballot papers declared invalid during that process. The Court emphasized that under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, specifically the proviso to subsection (2) of section 46, the power to invalidate votes lies with the Tribunal itself, which must satisfy itself regarding the invalidity of ballot papers. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned decision and remanded the case to the Election Tribunal to conduct a fresh scrutiny of the invalidated ballot papers in the presence of the parties.
Questions settled- Does an Election Tribunal have the authority to delegate the power to invalidate ballot papers to an official during a recount?
- Is an Election Tribunal required to personally examine ballot papers declared invalid during a recount before relying on them to decide an election petition?
- What is the scope of the Election Tribunal's power under section 46 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, regarding the inspection of ballot papers?
- Mian Atta Ullah vs L. D.A., Etc.K.L.R 1997 Revenue Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mewa Khan vs The State1995 PLD Quetta 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly harbouring the principal accused in a multiple murder case. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence including mens rea, knowledge, and intentional concealment, and whether the non-compliance with section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 caused prejudice to the accused. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution evidence was contradictory and unreliable, that mens rea and knowledge of the crime were mandatory prerequisites that had not been proven, and that the failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the conviction. The court laid down that harbouring or concealment under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cannot be punished without proof of a criminal intent and definite knowledge or reasonable belief that the person harboured is the offender, and that a co-accused's confession cannot form the substantive foundation for another's conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the offence of harbouring under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires proof of criminal intent and knowledge that the person harboured is an offender?
- Can a conviction under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on contradictory eyewitness testimony and uncorroborated evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confessional statement against another accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does the failure to put material incriminating circumstances to an accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
- Metropolitan Steel Corporation [Private] Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry Offinance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad And Three OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 411 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
- Metropolitan Steel Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1995 CLC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
- Metropolitan Corporation Lahore vs Imtiaz Hussain Kazmi, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zulfiqar Associates (Pvt.) Limited through Mian Hameed Ahmad1997 MLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Z. A. Traders and another vs United Bank Ltd.1997 MLD 227 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Young Tailors vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 4 others1995 PLC 297 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Venus Stationery Mart, Urdu Bazar, Lahore vs Member, Income-1995 PTD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Venus Stationary Mart vs Member Income Tax (Judicial)K.L.R. 1995 Tax & Customs Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Universal Business Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Kokusai1995 MLD 384 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Universal Business Equipment (Pvt) Ltd vs Kokusai Commerce1995 MLD 384 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Unique Enterprises through Proprietor vs Assistant1995 PTD 749 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a refund voucher along with the demand notice following an appellate order in their favor for the assessment year 1990-91. The core legal question was whether the income tax authorities are legally bound to issue a refund voucher simultaneously with the demand notice under section 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and under what circumstances such a refund may be withheld. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are mandatory, making the issuance of a refund voucher a statutory right rather than a concession. The Court ruled that an Income Tax Officer cannot withhold a refund at their discretion without recording well-founded reasons and obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner as mandated under section 103 of the Ordinance. The petition was consequently accepted, and the respondents were directed to issue the due refund without further delay.
Questions settled- Is an Income Tax Officer legally bound to issue a refund voucher along with the demand notice under section 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- What are the mandatory conditions and prerequisites required under section 103 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for withholding an admissible tax refund?
- Are the circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue binding on the functionaries of the Income Tax Department?
- Messrs Tobacco International Ltd., Karachi vs Habib Ahmed1995 PLC 338 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Surridge and Beecheno Advocates and Solicitors vs Naeem1995 PLC 559 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Silver Stone (Pvt.) Limited vs Rent Controller and others1995 MLD 851 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →