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.
- Messrs Silver Stone (Pvt.) Limited vs Rent Controller And Other1995 MLD 851 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shafco International vs Chairman, Pakistan1995 MLD 146 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Presson Manufacturing Limited and anothers vs Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and 2 others1995 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Presson Manufacturing Limited And Another vs Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources And 2 Other1995 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Poibani Dolls vs Commissioner of Income Tax1995 PTD 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs People Steel Mills Limited, Karachi vs Muhammad Nasim Qureshi1995 PLC 489 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pangrio Sugar Mills Limited, Badin through General Manager vs Abid Hussain1995 PLC 72 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation through General Manager1995 PLC 486 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pak Asia Restaurant vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise1995 MLD 214 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Nisar Art Press (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Managing Director vs Chief1997 MLD 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Murree Brewery Co. Ltd., Rawalpindi vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PTD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Meco Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Director vs Azad1995 MLD 2047 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Meco Electronics (Pvt) Ltd through Director vs Azad1995 MLD 2047 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anwar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Kaikobad Pestanjee Kakalia through Partners vs Messrs Almas1997 MLD 149 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Industrial Adhesives Ltd. vs The Deputy Collector (North), Central Excise and Sales Tax and others1995 PTD 353 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Sultan Ahmed And Another1995 MLD 799 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Ashraf &1995 MLD 390 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ash Raf & Sons1995 MLD 390 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Gec Avery (Pvt.) Limited vs Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PTD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the applicability of section 80-C(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the interpretation given to it via Circular No. 12 of 1991 issued by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the Assessing Officer could invoke section 80-C(5) to assess unexplained investments under section 13 without first identifying and isolating the specific source of income to which section 80-C applies. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of section 80-C(5) cannot be applied mechanically to every case simply because an assessee's income is generally governed by section 80-C; the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound to first identify and determine the nature and source of the unexplained sum or investment before invoking subsection (5). The petitions were accordingly allowed and the matters remanded for fresh determination in light of these parameters.
Questions settled- Can an Assessing Officer invoke section 80-C(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 without first identifying the source of income?
- Whether writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 are maintainable when the Central Board of Revenue has already issued a binding circular on the matter?
- What is the object behind the incorporation of subsection (5) into section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the application of section 80-C(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 automatically apply to every case where an assessee's income is subject to section 80-C?
- Messrs Beecham Pak vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from the assessment year 1978-79, wherein the applicant claimed sales promotion expenses, a portion of which was disallowed by the assessing officer for exceeding the five per cent limit prescribed under Rule 33 of the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Alpha Insurance Company. Upon reference, the High Court held that the regulatory penalty or consequence of violating the Drugs Rules—namely the potential cancellation or suspension of a licence—cannot be extended to the Income Tax Act to disallow genuine business expenses incurred in excess of the administrative limit unless expressly provided by tax law. The Court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Questions settled- Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing excess expenditure on advertising and sales promotion beyond the limit permitted under Rule 33 of the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976 under section 10(2)(xvi) of the Repealed Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Can the penalty or consequence of violating the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976 be extended to disallow business deductions under the Income Tax Act?
- Messrs Bamboat & Co. vs Messrs G.B. Construction Co.1995 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bamboat & Co vs G.B. Construction Co1995 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Baber Construction Company Through Proprietor Muhammad1995 MLD 273 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Azmat Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi and 2 others1995 PLC 264 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an ex parte order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, alleging lack of jurisdiction and improper service of notice. The core legal questions were whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative appellate remedy exists, and whether the Authority possessed territorial jurisdiction over the petitioner's factory. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the statutory appeal provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was not an efficacious or adequate remedy. The Court further held that it would not engage in factual inquiries regarding the service of notice or the authority of the manager in writ proceedings. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appeals, and the requirement to deposit funds to file an appeal does not render the appellate remedy inefficacious. Furthermore, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location where the cause of action arose, specifically where the employees performed their duties.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an adequate statutory appellate remedy exists under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Does the requirement to deposit an amount to file an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 render the appellate remedy inefficacious?
- Can the High Court conduct factual inquiries regarding the service of notice or the authority of a manager in writ proceedings?
- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction over a factory located within its territorial division, regardless of the location of the employer's head office?
- Messrs Aziz Book Depot, Lahore vs Inspecting Additional1995 PTD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Azad Papers Limited, Karachi vs Muhammad Iqbal and another1995 PLC 49 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Arrow Trading Company vs Hyosung Corporation and 21997 MLD 55 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Karam Textile Mills(Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Muhammad1995 PLC 680 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed by Al-Karam Textile Mills against the reinstatement of eleven workers whose services were terminated without notice or written order. The core legal question was whether the appellant Mill or the labour contractor was responsible for the observance of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, regarding these workers. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that because the Mill retained control over the Weaving Department—managing the unit, supplying raw materials, and providing utilities—the contractor was merely a supplier of labour rather than an independent lessee of the unit. Consequently, under Section 20 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the Mill remained the employer responsible for statutory compliance. The Tribunal affirmed the Labour Court's finding that the termination violated Section 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as it was effected orally without written reasons or notice. The Tribunal upheld the order for reinstatement with back benefits, establishing the principle that where an establishment retains operational control, it cannot evade statutory employer obligations by engaging workers through labour contractors.
Questions settled- Is an establishment responsible for the observance of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, when workers are supplied through a labour contractor but the establishment retains operational control?
- Does the termination of a worker's service without a written order violate Section 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Under what circumstances does a labour contractor become responsible for the observance of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, instead of the establishment?
- Messrs Aisha Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PTD 493 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves three batches of constitutional petitions challenging the validity of sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which were introduced by the Finance Acts of 1991 and 1992. The petitioners, comprising various companies, contractors, and exporters, argued that these provisions levied tax on gross turnover or presumptive/deemed income rather than actual profits, thereby exceeding the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and violating fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the term 'income' must be interpreted in its widest amplitude and includes fictional, deemed, or presumptive income. The Court ruled that the legislature is fully competent to levy presumptive tax to combat widespread tax evasion and simplify procedures. Furthermore, the minimum tax rates on turnover were found to be neither discriminatory nor confiscatory, as they applied uniformly to designated classes with a rational nexus to the legislative objective.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Legislature is competent to enact presumptive or deemed income tax provisions under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether a tax levied on gross turnover or presumptive income constitutes a tax on income under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Whether minimum tax provisions on business turnover violate the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and non-confiscation of property?
- Can the validity of an Ordinance be challenged on the ground that it was promulgated by a military usurper after the enactment of Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Limited and others vs Income Tax1995 PTD 761 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Meraj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-22Read full judgment →
- Meraj Din and others vs Chief Engineer and others1995 P Cr. L J 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an appellate order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which had remanded a proceedings initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 back to the trial magistrate. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a section 561-A petition against a revisional remand order and whether proceedings under section 145 can continue when a competent civil court is already seized of the matter regarding the same property and has granted an injunction regulating possession, and where no continuing apprehension of a breach of the peace exists. The Lahore High Court held that the petition under section 561-A is maintainable as inherent powers are not curtailed by revisional powers, and further held that where a civil court is already seized of the subject-matter and there is no likelihood of a breach of the peace, summary proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be maintained. The court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction of a magistrate under section 145 is contingent upon an existing apprehension of a breach of the peace and must yield to pending civil litigation determining possession.
Questions settled- Whether a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable against a revisional remand order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same property oust the jurisdiction of a magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a continuing danger of a breach of the peace a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can criminal proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be utilized to settle civil disputes or run concurrently when a civil court has regulated possession?
- Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others vs Khan Muhammad1995 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court passed in a writ petition, whereby the respondent was granted proprietary rights in respect of certain State land held under a 15 years lease scheme. The respondent had previously been conferred proprietary rights under the ejected tenants scheme in 1967 and later obtained lease land in 1971. After portions of the land were resumed for a graveyard and his challenges failed, he applied for proprietary rights over the remaining leased land based on a notification dated September 3, 1979. The revenue authorities declined the request, citing his prior acquisition of proprietary rights. The High Court, however, ruled in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court could competently exercise its writ jurisdiction to grant proprietary rights contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the scheme promulgated under the notification.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can competently grant proprietary rights contrary to the provisions of a notification scheme?
- Does the prior acquisition of proprietary rights under the ejected tenants scheme bar a lessee from obtaining proprietary rights under the 15 years lease scheme pursuant to the notification dated 3-9-1979?
- Mehtab Hussain and anothers vs The State and another1995 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 70 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mehtab Gul vs Commissioner, Afghan Refugees, Peshawar and another1995 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, a former Store Keeper in the Afghan Refugees Organization, challenging the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The petitioner's services were terminated on January 1, 1994, and the Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground that he was a temporary employee in a temporary organization. The core legal question raised is whether an employee with more than ten years of service in the Afghan Refugees Organization is entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations upon termination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider this question of law of public importance, noting the petitioner's reliance on a previous unreported judgment of the Court.
Questions settled- Whether an employee of a temporary organization with over ten years of service is entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations?
- Does the termination of a temporary employee in a temporary organization bar claims for pensionary benefits after long service?
- Mehrban and 3 others vs The State1995 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction of the petitioners for murder. The core legal question was whether the lower courts committed any legal error, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in convicting the petitioners, particularly given the defense's contention that the crime was a 'blind murder' and that the deceased had other enemies. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court and the High Court had properly appraised the evidence. The Court found that the presence of other potential enemies does not inherently cast doubt on the veracity of prosecution witnesses, nor did the medical evidence regarding the deceased's stomach contents contradict the eyewitness accounts of the occurrence. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference is not justified where the lower courts have correctly appreciated the evidence and no material misreading is demonstrated. The Court affirmed that the prosecution's case remains credible despite defense theories regarding the timing of the attack and the deceased's other rivalries.
Questions settled- Does the existence of other potential enemies of the deceased automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
- Can a court interfere with a conviction based on arguments regarding the medical condition of the deceased's stomach at the time of death?
- Is the testimony of eyewitnesses rendered unreliable solely because they did not intervene to rescue the victim during an attack?
- MEHRAPetititioner vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mehran Sugar Mills Limited vs Sindh Sugar Corporation Limited1995 CLC 707 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arises from an application filed by the plaintiff-Company seeking interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from operating Thatta Sugar Mill and from selling, disposing of, or removing stocks of sugar, molasses, and alcohol from the mill premises. The core legal question involves whether the plaintiff made out a case for the grant of a temporary injunction, satisfying the triple requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Sindh High Court held that no final agreement or concluded contract of sale had materialized between the parties as the Memorandum of Understanding did not constitute a valid binding sale agreement, and the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or balance of convenience. Furthermore, the court held that since the plaintiff claimed monetary damages in the main suit, any alleged loss could be compensated in money, negating irreparable injury, and that restraining the operation of the mill or sale of perishable goods would cause severe administrative chaos, revenue loss to the national exchequer, and hardship to workers and sugarcane growers. The application was dismissed and the interim injunction recalled.
Questions settled- Whether the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding without a final concluded agreement creates a valid legal right for the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Does the claiming of monetary damages in a suit disentitle a plaintiff from seeking interlocutory injunctive relief?
- Whether a temporary injunction can be refused when its issuance would cause administrative chaos and financial loss to the national exchequer and workers?
- Are stocks of sugar, molasses, and alcohol considered perishable goods justifying the denial of an injunction against their sale?
- Mehr Sultan vs Sheikh Muzaffar AhmedK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mehr Manzoor Hussain, Secretary, Market1995 CLC 650 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mehmood Hussain vs Judge Family CourtK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 293 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Akhtar Awan vs Secretary, I & P, Government of Punjab1995 PLC (C.S.) 593 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Akhtar Awan vs Secretary I & P Government of PunjabK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Akhtar and anothers vs Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others1995 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two criminal petitions arising from a Lahore High Court order regarding bail in a murder case registered under F.I.R. No. 127. One petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to three accused, while the other sought bail for a fourth accused, Rehmat Hussain, whose application was previously declined. The core legal questions were whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail to the three accused in a cross-case scenario where they were allegedly empty-handed, and whether the fourth accused, alleged to have facilitated the crime by holding the deceased, was entitled to bail. The Supreme Court upheld the bail granted to the three accused, noting the cross-case nature and lack of specific injury attribution. Furthermore, the Court granted bail to the fourth accused, determining that the role of "facilitating" a crime requires further inquiry, consistent with established precedent. The judgment affirms that bail may be granted in cross-case scenarios where specific roles are not clearly attributed, and that allegations of facilitating a murder require further inquiry, thus entitling an accused to bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the incident is a cross-case and no specific injuries are attributed to them?
- Does the allegation of facilitating a murder by holding the deceased require further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail if the order is based on a proper assessment of the cross-version of the incident?
- Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others vs The State and another1995 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal questions concern the reliability of eye-witness testimony, the validity of an identification parade, and the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries witnessed solely by interested parties. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court established that an identification parade is legally infirm and lacks evidentiary value if the witness merely identifies the accused without attributing specific roles played in the crime. Furthermore, the Court ruled that recovery proceedings conducted in the presence of only interested relatives, without independent local witnesses, are "sham" and inadmissible. Additionally, the Court emphasized that while the testimony of an injured witness carries weight, it must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny for consistency and credibility, particularly when corroboration is absent. Unexplained delays in recording statements and inconsistencies in the FIR further weaken the prosecution's case, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does an identification parade have evidentiary value if the witness identifies the accused without specifying their role in the crime?
- Can a recovery of weapons be considered valid if witnessed only by close relatives of the deceased without independent local witnesses?
- Should the testimony of an injured witness be accepted without corroboration if there are material contradictions in their statement?
- What is the effect of unexplained delay in recording the statement of an injured witness on the prosecution's case?
- Mehmand and 3 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mehboob-Ul-Hassan vs The State1995 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a police constable, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his bail application in a criminal case registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued for the grant of bail based on the principle of consistency, noting that a co-accused, Farooq, had been granted bail by the Allaqa Magistrate. The Supreme Court examined the record and distinguished the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused. It noted that the co-accused was granted bail because no recovery was made from him and the complainant had filed an affidavit asserting his innocence. Conversely, the petitioner was positively identified during an identification parade, and the robbed property was recovered from his possession. Consequently, the Court held that the principle of consistency did not apply, as the evidentiary basis for the co-accused's bail was absent in the petitioner's case. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the principle of consistency automatically entitle a co-accused to bail if another co-accused has been granted bail?
- Is the recovery of robbed property from an accused a valid ground for refusing bail?
- Can bail be denied if an accused is correctly identified during an identification parade?
- Mehboob Al! alias Maqbali and 11 others vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and 2 others1995 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Akhtar alias Baboo vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mehar Din vs D.S.C. and others1995 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mehar Din vs D.S.C. And Other1995 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mauza Guru Mangat, Gulberg-III, Lahore vs Deputy SettlementK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 109 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maulvi Qurban Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Muhammad Umar vs Haji Pir Bakhsh and 7 others1995 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a revision petition in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a subsequent vendee, who acquired the pre-empted property prior to the institution of the suit but lacked a superior right of pre-emption at the time of the initial sale, could defeat the pre-emption claim by subsequently acquiring such a right through a gift before the suit was filed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the improvement of status was inapplicable to a subsequent vendee in this context. The Court determined that for a subsequent vendee to defeat a pre-emption claim, the transfer must be in recognition of a pre-existing superior right of pre-emption. Since the petitioner lacked this right at the time of the initial transfer, the transaction was a simple transfer subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. Consequently, the claim of the original vendee, rather than the subsequent assignee, remained the relevant benchmark against the pre-emptor. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent vendee defeat a pre-emption claim by acquiring a superior right of pre-emption after the initial sale but before the institution of the suit?
- Is a transfer to a subsequent vendee who lacks a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale subject to the doctrine of lis pendens?
- Does the right to improve status before a pre-emption decree apply to a subsequent vendee who was not a party to the original sale?
- Maulvi Mir Qalam Khan vs Mst. Shamim Bibi and another1995 CLC 731 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Ashiq Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Maulana Ataul Mohsin and 4 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1276 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
- Maula Bux Khushik vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh, Karachi and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1074 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Maula Bux Khushik vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1070 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Malik Muhammad Nawaz and anothers vs Syed Mehmood Hussain1997 MLD 188 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
- Matloob Hussain vs United Bank Limited Chakffwari Branch MirpurK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 560 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
- Mateen vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-01Read full judgment →
- Mataro and another vs The State1997 MLD 260 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
- Masood Mustafa vs The State1997 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
- Masood Ahmed Changwani vs Directorgeneral, Bureau of Emigration1995 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's service appeal pursuant to section 4(1) proviso (b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could maintain a service appeal challenging the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and seeking his own promotion when his seniority relative to those respondents remained undetermined and pending decision before the departmental authority. The Supreme Court held that until the petitioner's claim of seniority over the respondents is finalized and allowed by the department, he cannot claim promotion over them on the basis of seniority, and therefore the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was proper. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot bypass departmental determination of a provisional seniority list to claim promotion over allegedly junior colleagues through a service tribunal appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can claim promotion over allegedly junior colleagues when their relative seniority is still provisional and pending determination before the departmental authority?
- Does the bar under section 4(1) proviso (b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply to a service appeal where promotion is sought without a finalized determination of seniority?
- Masood Ahmed Changwani vs Director-General, Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment Islamabad and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's service appeal pursuant to Section 4(1) proviso (b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The core legal question concerns whether a civil servant can maintain an appeal challenging the promotion of juniors and seeking his own promotion when his departmental representation regarding a provisional seniority list showing him as junior remains pending. The Supreme Court held that until the petitioner's claim of seniority over the respondents is formally determined by the department, he cannot claim promotion over them on the basis of seniority, and therefore the Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that a service appeal challenging promotions and seeking consequential promotion is barred or premature when it is contingent upon a disputed and undetermined seniority status pending before departmental authorities.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal regarding promotion while his representation against a provisional seniority list is still pending?
- Does a service appeal challenging the promotion of alleged juniors lie when the petitioner's own seniority has not yet been determined by the departmental authority?
- Masihullah and anothers vs The Deputy Settlement Commissionerii, Board of Revenue, Punjab1995 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners assailed a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed in limine their writ petition against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner refusing to correct or increase the transferred excess area. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could initiate a fresh round of litigation for the same relief and on the same cause of action after their prior challenges before settlement authorities, the High Court, and the Supreme Court had already been conclusively dismissed. The Supreme Court held that having previously exhausted all remedies up to the apex court without success, the petitioners were barred from initiating fresh litigation on the same matter. The court laid down the principle that a party cannot re-litigate a settled grievance through successive proceedings when prior challenges regarding the same cause of action and relief have reached finality.
Questions settled- Whether a party can initiate a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action after prior challenges before settlement authorities and superior courts have been dismissed?
- Are petitioners entitled to re-litigate the quantum of transferred excess area once their earlier petitions for leave to appeal have been rejected by the Supreme Court?
- Mashooque Murtaza Rashdi vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi through its President and 2 others1995 PLC 278 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Marwari Hotel vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 1329 [211 I T R 423] · Patna High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
- Maroon Rashid vs Raziuddin, Etc.K.L.R. 1907 Civil Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
- Market Committee, Multan through its Administrator and anothers vs Muhammad Sabir1995 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the occupation of land in the New Grain Market, Multan, by an affectee of a clean-up operation. The petitioner, the Market Committee, challenged an Intra-Court Appeal judgment that granted the respondent, Muhammad Sabir, the status of a tenant, similar to other affectees previously accommodated by the Committee. The core legal question was whether the respondent, an identified affectee of the clean-up operation, was entitled to equal treatment and regularization as a tenant, given that the Market Committee had already settled with similarly situated individuals in a prior writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the rule of consistency and the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised to advance justice. The Court held that the respondent should be treated as a tenant on terms consistent with previous settlements, provided he vacated excess land, thereby ensuring equitable treatment among similarly situated parties without encouraging illegal encroachment on public property.
Questions settled- Does the rule of consistency require a public authority to treat similarly situated affectees of a clean-up operation equally regarding the regularization of land occupation?
- Can a court exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to grant tenancy status to an encroacher if it advances justice and prevents discriminatory treatment?
- Is a party entitled to equitable relief when they are an identified affectee of a government clean-up operation and the authority has already settled with others in the same category?
- Markazi Union Lambardaran, Punjab Province through Its PresidentK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 59 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maqsood vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 646 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmed vs The State1995 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the petitioner, Maqsood Ahmed, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld his conviction and life imprisonment sentence for the murder of Bostan Khan under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the petitioner's guilt were supported by sufficient evidence, specifically addressing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's guilt through strong corroborative evidence, including the petitioner's immediate apprehension at the crime scene with the murder weapon, forensic matching of the recovered empty cartridge to the petitioner's gun, and the testimony of police officials. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact, when free from misreading or non-reading of evidence, do not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioner the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of his sentence.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of a murder weapon and forensic matching of an empty cartridge provide sufficient corroboration for eyewitness testimony in a murder trial?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if there is no evidence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict seeking leave to appeal against a conviction for murder?
- Maqsood Ahmed vs Mahmood Khalid, Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and another1995 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Maqsood Ahmed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his writ petition in limine, which had challenged concurrent orders of the lower courts denying him the custody of his minor children. The core legal question concerned the welfare of the minors regarding their custody between the divorced parents. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had determined that the welfare of the minors lay in remaining with their mother, noting they were receiving proper education in an English Medium School and that the petitioner had delayed seeking custody for over seven years after separation. The key principle laid down is that the paramount consideration in matters of minor custody is the welfare of the children, and concurrent factual determinations by lower courts will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of legal flaw or perversity.
Questions settled- Is the welfare of the minors the primary consideration in determining custody disputes between divorced parents?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding minor custody in the absence of a legal flaw?
- Does an unexplained delay in filing a custody application weigh against the petitioner seeking custody?
- Maqsood Ahmad/ vs The State1995 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the petitioner’s conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, instead convicting him under section 304, Part I, and section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had rejected the prosecution's case in its entirety, finding the petitioner's version of events—that he acted under sudden and grave provocation—to be more probable. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court was excessive given the circumstances of the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and affirmed the conviction. However, the Court held that the sentence was disproportionate to the circumstances. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment for life under section 304, Part I, to rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count, while maintaining the fines and the sentence under section 308. The Court further directed that the substantive sentences run concurrently and granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to a fixed term of years upon finding it excessive?
- Does the acceptance of a plea of sudden and grave provocation by the High Court necessitate a reduction in the quantum of sentence?
- Are sentences for multiple counts of culpable homicide required to run concurrently?
- Maqsood Ahmad vs The Accountant-General Pakistan, Revenue, Islamabad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions seeking leave to appeal against orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeals regarding pension enhancement. The petitioner, who retired on 25-7-1970, claimed payment of pension at an enhanced rate pursuant to an Office Memorandum dated 3-10-1991. His request was denied by the respondent and the Service Tribunal, which interpreted paragraph 4 of the memorandum—providing that pension shall be calculated for all pensioners from time to time in accordance with latest rules—as referring only to the pension rules applicable at the time of an individual's retirement. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal's interpretation of the memorandum runs contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the correct interpretation of the Office Memorandum and whether the Service Tribunal erred in failing to follow the binding precedent established in I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Whether paragraph 4 of Office Memorandum No. F.6(4)/Reg.(6)/91 applies to all pensioners or only according to rules in force at the time of retirement?
- Whether the Service Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 3-10-1991 contrary to Supreme Court precedent?
- Maqsood Ahmad vs Accountantgeneral, Pakistan Revenue, Islamabad1995 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against orders passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim for pension payments at an enhanced rate. The petitioner, who retired on 25 July 1970, sought the benefit of an Office Memorandum dated 3 October 1991, specifically relying on paragraph 4, which stipulates that pension calculations for all pensioners should be made in accordance with the latest rules. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in its interpretation of this Memorandum by restricting its application to the pension rules in force at the time of an individual's retirement, rather than applying the latest rules as the Memorandum suggests. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the Tribunal's interpretation contradicts the principles established in the precedent of I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041). The Court's holding focuses on resolving the conflict between the Tribunal's restrictive reading of the pension policy and the broader interpretation required by the cited precedent regarding the calculation of pension benefits for retirees.
Questions settled- Does the Office Memorandum dated 3rd October 1991 require pension calculations to be based on the latest rules regardless of the date of retirement?
- Did the Federal Service Tribunal err in interpreting paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 3rd October 1991 as being limited to pension rules applicable at the time of retirement?
- Is the interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 3rd October 1991 by the Federal Service Tribunal contrary to the decision in I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan?
- Maqsood Ahmad and 2 others vs Government of Punjab and anothers1995 CLC 842 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Maqbool vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed vs Superintending Engineer (E), WAPDA, 2ND Circle, Faisalabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal questions concern whether the petitioner's departmental appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation and whether the petitioner was entitled to certain claimed financial dues following his acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions in detail, thereby setting the stage for a comprehensive review of limitation principles in service appeals and the consequential financial entitlements of acquitted civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether the appeal of the petitioner before the Federal Service Tribunal was barred by time?
- Whether an employee is entitled to claimed dues after securing an order of acquittal from a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Maqbool Ahmed Alias Koola . vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 721 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs Shahzad Tabasum and another1995 CLC 358 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition concerns the limitation period for the first execution application of a civil court decree. The respondent obtained a decree for specific performance on June 1, 1986. An execution application was filed on May 22, 1993, nearly seven years later. The District Judge had allowed the execution, reasoning that the time spent by the petitioner challenging the decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be excluded from the limitation period. The High Court held that the first application for execution of a civil court decree is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, which prescribes a three-year limitation period, while Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides an outer limit of six years for subsequent applications. The Court ruled that filing a Section 12(2) application does not constitute fraud or force under Section 48(2)(a) to extend limitation. Furthermore, the three-year period had already expired before the Section 12(2) application was even filed. Consequently, the execution application was time-barred.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period for the first application for execution of a civil court decree?
- Does the filing of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute fraud or force under Section 48(2)(a) to extend the limitation period for execution?
- Does Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 govern the first application for execution of a decree?
- Can the time spent pursuing a Section 12(2) application be excluded when computing the limitation period for an execution application?
- Maqbool Ahmad vs Fareed Ahmad1995 MLD 425 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad and anothers vs Munir Ahmad and 3 others1995 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent judgments of the lower courts, including a Civil Revision, which upheld a decree for the partition of land. The petitioners, who were co-sharers in the suit land, had contested the partition suit by asserting ownership of the entire property through adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer can successfully claim adverse possession against other co-sharers regarding joint property without prior partition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioners failed to establish their claim. The Court held that a co-sharer cannot set up a plea of adverse possession against other co-sharers in the absence of a formal partition and the acquisition of exclusive possession of their respective shares. The key principle laid down is that co-sharers are legally considered to have joint possession of the property, and for one co-sharer to claim adverse possession, their entry into the shared portion must be demonstrably hostile and adverse, which was not proven in this instance.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer claim adverse possession against other co-sharers regarding joint property without a formal partition?
- Is the possession of co-sharers legally considered to be joint possession?
- Manzoorulhassan alias Teetu vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The State1995 MLD 1097 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Masih vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a petition for leave to appeal, addresses a case of two competing versions involving a sudden free fight where both sides sustained injuries and a murder was committed. The core legal question revolved around the appraisal of conflicting evidence, the existence of common intention, and individual criminal liability in a sudden affray. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that where both parties conceal the genesis of the incident and engage in a sudden free fight resulting in injuries to both sides, individual liability attaches to each participant for their specific acts, and the prosecution version—supported by the nature and gravity of injuries sustained by the deceased and the complainant party—is to be believed over a concocted plea of self-defence. The key principle laid down is that in a sudden free fight between hostile parties where the exact origin is obscured, the right of private defence is excluded, and each participant is held responsible solely for their individual criminal acts.
Questions settled- Whether participants in a sudden free fight where both sides sustain injuries are liable only for their individual acts?
- Can the plea of right of private defence be sustained when both parties conceal the actual genesis of the incident and engage in a sudden affray?
- Does a hostile witness's testimony regarding the obscurity of the incident due to darkness override the corroborated medical and circumstantial evidence of the prosecution?
- Whether the absence of a premeditated attack and the presence of a sudden flare-up warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Manzoor Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-30Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary1995 PLC (C.S.) 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Director, Civil Defence (BPS-17). The core legal question concerns the validity of the promotion made by the Provincial Selection Board, where the petitioner claimed superior qualifications, better confidential records, and a departmental recommendation, despite the respondent being senior in service. The Supreme Court held that the promotion of the senior respondent was made strictly in accordance with the rules and merits upon clearance by the Provincial Selection Board, and that a departmental recommendation or a stopgap acting arrangement creates no vested right to out-of-turn promotion. The Court laid down the principle that average integrity remarks do not constitute adverse entries, and departmental recommendations are not binding when promotions are lawfully determined on merit and seniority by the competent selection board. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a stopgap or acting arrangement creates any right in favour of an employee for out-of-turn promotion?
- Does a departmental recommendation for promotion have a binding effect on the Provincial Selection Board?
- Whether average remarks regarding an officer's integrity in an Annual Confidential Report are to be construed as adverse remarks?
- Can a promotion made strictly in accordance with rules and merits by a selection board be successfully challenged through a writ petition without proof of mala fides?
- Manzoor Hussain vs Chairman, Market Committee, Kot Lakhpat1995 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain And 4 Others vs The State1995 MLD 365 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-19Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1394 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for kidnapping for ransom and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the identification evidence of the abductee and prosecution witnesses, particularly in the absence of a credible identification parade and where the witnesses were short-sighted or previously shown the accused by the police. The Sindh High Court held that dock identification, without a valid prior identification parade conducted under judicial supervision, holds little legal value, especially when tainted by police interference and contradictions in witness testimony. The court established that the prosecution must first establish a prima facie link between the accused and the crime before any statutory shift of the burden of proof under special legislation can apply, and where material doubts exist regarding identification and recovery, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the identification of an accused in court for the first time without a valid identification parade is sufficient for conviction?
- Does the failure to hold a proper identification parade under judicial supervision create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case regarding the identity of the accused?
- Under what circumstances does the burden of proof shift to the accused under section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
- Can the testimony of an abductee suffering from severe short-sightedness and who lost his spectacles during the incident be safely relied upon for identification?
- Manzoor Ali vs The Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court1995 PLC 286 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Department of Education, Quetta and 4 others1995 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the High Court of Balochistan, challenging the rejection of the appellant's application for admission against a reserved seat at Balochistan Engineering College, Khuzdar. The Selection Committee rejected the application under clause 2.12 of the Admission Policy because the appellant completed his Matriculation and F.Sc. examinations in Sindh rather than Balochistan, refusing to grant a waiver of this requirement. The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the grounds advanced by the appellant constituted reasons beyond his control to justify a waiver under clause 2.12 of the Admission Policy. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that studying outside the province merely for personal convenience and better transport facilities does not amount to a condition beyond the candidate's control. The Court laid down that statutory or administrative admission conditions regarding territorial educational qualification cannot be relaxed unless the candidate establishes circumstances genuinely beyond their control.
Questions settled- Does personal convenience in attending an educational institution outside a province qualify as a reason beyond a candidate's control to warrant a waiver of educational qualification requirements under an admission policy?
- Can an appellate court refuse to remand a matter to an administrative selection committee if the candidate's stated grounds fail to meet the objective criteria for waiver under the relevant rules?
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Director, Engineering PIA Head Office, Karachi and 3 others1995 PLC 753 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →