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.
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kasana, Director, Agriculture (Research), Faisalabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 365 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-08-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob vs Nazim Hussain and others1995 CLC 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges an order of the trial court granting a one-day extension to the respondents for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' (one-third of the sale price) in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court had the lawful authority under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time for depositing the pre-emption money after the expiry of the originally fixed period, and whether such discretion was properly exercised. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court possesses the jurisdiction under Section 148, C.P.C., and Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act to extend the time for deposit up to the maximum statutory limit of thirty days from the filing of the suit upon sufficient cause. The court established that the statutory wording 'shall be dismissed' requires judicial consideration of whether a default occurred, and procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than penalize bona fide human errors or entrap litigants.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the jurisdiction under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' after the originally fixed period has expired?
- Whether a pre-emption suit stands automatically dismissed upon the expiry of the date fixed for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' without a formal judicial determination of default?
- Can a court extend the time for depositing the pre-emption sale price up to the maximum statutory limit of thirty days from the filing of the suit?
- Is a bona fide human error in depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' a sufficient ground for the exercise of judicial discretion to grant a brief extension of time?
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Zubair and 4 others1995 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting two respondents of murder charges under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in discarding reliable ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and forensic ballistic reports, based on minor discrepancies and alleged delays in sending crime empties to the laboratory. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal of one respondent, Zubair, was unjustified as his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and positive forensic reports linking the weapon to the crime scene. Conversely, the Court upheld the acquittal of the second respondent, Zaheer, due to insufficient corroborative evidence, specifically the lack of forensic linkage. The judgment reinforces the principle that delay in sending crime empties to a laboratory is immaterial if the seals remain intact and untampered, and that conviction can be based on interested witnesses if their presence is natural and their testimony is corroborated by independent evidence.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory automatically invalidate the forensic evidence?
- Can a conviction be based on the testimony of interested witnesses if their presence at the scene is natural and corroborated by other evidence?
- Is the acquittal of an accused justified when forensic evidence fails to link the recovered weapon to the crime scene?
- Ch. Muhammad Sharif vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Gujrat1995 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had maintained the refusal of an interim injunction in a civil suit. The petitioner, who had previously leased canal land for temporary cultivation, participated in a new auction for the lease after his previous term expired. Although the petitioner deposited 10% of the bid money and received a recommendation from the Sub-Divisional Officer, the bid remained pending approval by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner sought an injunction to prevent the authorities from proceeding further after the bid approval was refused and a re-auction was ordered. The trial court initially granted the injunction, but the appellate court and subsequently the High Court refused it, reasoning that the auction had not received final approval from the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that since the competent authority had not approved the auction, it remained within their competence to order a re-auction. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an interim injunction against the re-auction of canal land where the initial bid has not received final approval from the competent authority?
- Does an auction bidder acquire a vested right to a lease before the competent authority grants final approval?
- Is the decision to order a re-auction of canal land within the competence of the relevant authority when the initial bid remains unapproved?
- Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate vs MRs, Benazir Bhutto, Mna, Prime1995 MLD 1615 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Sadio, Advocate vs Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, Mna, Prime1995 MLD 1615 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Latif vs Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, Karachi1995 PLC (C.S.) 1061 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
- CH. Muhammad Latif vs I. G. Police SindhK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 24 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Ilyas And 3 Others vs Waheeduddin Ziauddin Ahmad And Another1995 MLD 237 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-21Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Bashir vs Superintending Engineer, III-Provincial1995 PLC 384 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal vs The Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and 51995 P Cr. L J 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- CH. Muhammad Abdullah Virk vs Rana Nazir Ahmed, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 592 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. Mehrban vs Muhammad Arif and others1995 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted four respondents of charges related to the murder of a local lawyer and a murderous assault on his wife. The trial court had convicted two respondents and sentenced them to death, while acquitting the others. The High Court subsequently set aside these convictions and acquitted all respondents, rejecting both the ocular testimony and the forensic recovery evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the High Court's rejection of the eye-witness account, particularly noting that one witness was an injured victim, and contested the dismissal of the recovery evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the two respondents whose ocular testimony was corroborated by forensic recovery evidence—specifically the matching of empty cartridges to recovered weapons—merited further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of these two specific respondents while refusing leave regarding the others, issuing bailable warrants for their appearance.
Questions settled- Does the presence of forensic recovery evidence corroborating ocular testimony warrant granting leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Can a High Court's rejection of ocular testimony be challenged in the Supreme Court when such testimony is supported by independent forensic evidence?
- Ch. Mehdi Khan and others vs Punjab Province and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
- CH. Imran Raza Khan vs The Deputy Commissloner/CHAIRMAN DistrictK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 90 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Fateh Muhammad and others vs Moulvi Muhammad Bashir through Legal Heirs and others1995 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a decree for possession through pre-emption in favor of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptor, whose title was based on adverse possession rather than a registered sale deed, possessed a superior right of pre-emption against the vendees. The Supreme Court held that the pre-emptor had successfully established his superior right of pre-emption, as he had been recorded as the owner of the land in the Revenue Record since 1956 and had matured his title through adverse possession for over a decade. The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the absence of a registered sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act invalidated the pre-emptor's claim, affirming that ownership acquired via prescription is sufficient to establish a superior right of pre-emption against vendees who are not owners in the estate. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the lower courts' decisions and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a person establish a superior right of pre-emption based on ownership acquired through adverse possession?
- Does the absence of a registered sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 preclude a party from asserting a superior right of pre-emption if they have otherwise matured ownership through prescription?
- Ch. Fateh Jang vs Dr. Sheela B. Charles1995 CLC 923 · Election Tribunal · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition concerns a dispute over the results of multi-member Provincial Seats reserved for Christians, wherein the petitioners alleged miscalculation and incorrect tabulation of votes by the Returning Officer between Forms XVI-A and XVI-B. Pursuant to earlier proceedings, a recount was conducted in respect of 35 pin-pointed constituencies. Subsequently, miscellaneous applications were filed raising objections regarding the inclusion of allegedly invalid votes and the absence of ballot papers from certain polling stations during the recount. The Election Tribunal held that a petitioner in an election petition cannot be permitted to raise a fresh ground of challenge or introduce new instances that were not pleaded in the original petition or at the time of seeking a recount, in view of the statutory restrictions under the election law. Furthermore, parties are estopped from objecting to the recount methodology or missing records after explicitly notifying that no further records are required. The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications, holding that the objections were an afterthought and beyond the scope of the original pleadings.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner introduce a new ground of challenge or raise fresh objections regarding the validity of votes through miscellaneous applications in an election petition?
- Whether an objection regarding the inclusion of invalid votes can be entertained if it was not raised before the Presiding Officer at the close of the poll under section 38 of the Representation of People Act 1976?
- Does section 62(3) of the Representation of People Act 1976 permit the raising of new grounds of challenge to an election through amendment or indirect applications?
- Can results be verified from statements of count (Form XIV) when the original ballot papers or records of certain polling stations are unavailable during a recount?
- Ch. Aftab Ahmed vs General Manager, WAPDA and another1995 SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Senior Engineer in WAPDA, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service. Initially, the petitioner faced a departmental inquiry for misconduct, resulting in a major penalty of reduction to the lowest time-scale stage. While his departmental appeal was pending, the Authority issued a notice under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, to reconsider the punishment. Subsequently, the Authority enhanced the penalty to dismissal from service. The Federal Service Tribunal declined to interfere, finding no procedural irregularity in the inquiry. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that the order passed under Rule 12 failed to provide reasons for the enhancement of the punishment, citing precedent regarding the necessity of reasoned orders in such administrative actions. The Supreme Court found the contention regarding the lack of reasons for enhancing the penalty to be a substantial legal question requiring examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the dismissal order was sustainable without explicit justification for the enhancement.
Questions settled- Whether an order enhancing a penalty under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, must disclose reasons for such enhancement?
- Can a disciplinary authority enhance a penalty while a departmental appeal against the initial penalty is pending?
- Ch. Abdul Rehman vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. Abdul Rashid, Chief Engineer, Planning, Director-General Office, Pak. P.W.D., Islamabad vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1995 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of two appeals by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and promotion of two civil servants in the Pak P.W.D. The petitioner challenged the promotion of a colleague on the grounds of ineligibility due to failing to meet the minimum required score, while also contesting a seniority list. The Tribunal dismissed the promotion appeal, holding that the issue concerned 'fitness' for promotion, which is excluded from its jurisdiction under the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Regarding seniority, the Tribunal was divided, with the Chairman ultimately dismissing the appeal as time-barred, ruling that the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal within 120 days of filing his departmental representation rather than waiting for a final decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying the core legal questions as whether the challenge to promotion involved 'eligibility' rather than 'fitness' and whether the petitioner was entitled to await the outcome of his departmental representation before approaching the Tribunal for the purpose of limitation.
Questions settled- Does a challenge to a promotion based on the failure to achieve a minimum eligibility score constitute a question of 'eligibility' or 'fitness'?
- Is a civil servant required to approach the Service Tribunal within 120 days of filing a departmental representation, or may they wait for the final departmental decision before filing an appeal?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate a promotion dispute where the candidate allegedly failed to meet the minimum threshold marks?
- Ch. Abdul Rashid vs Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and 21995 PLC (C.S.) 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two interconnected petitions for leave to appeal arising from service disputes between two civil servants of the Pak. P.W.D., concerning matters of seniority and promotion to higher grades. The core legal questions involve whether the challenge to a promotion relates to eligibility or fitness under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether the service appeal regarding seniority was barred by limitation when the aggrieved civil servant awaited a departmental response beyond the statutory period. The Supreme Court considered the arguments regarding the minimum threshold score for promotion, the separate maintenance of seniority in civil and electrical/mechanical engineering cadres, and the computation of limitation periods following departmental representations. Finding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed consideration, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the issues raised.
Questions settled- Whether a challenge to the promotion of a civil servant based on failure to achieve the required minimum eligibility score relates to eligibility or fitness for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Does a civil servant's waiting for a decision on a departmental representation extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal beyond the statutory timeframe?
- Whether officers belonging to Civil Engineering and Electrical & Mechanical Engineering cadres maintain separate seniority up to the level of Superintending Engineer?
- CH Waheed-U-Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 424 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
- Central Trading (Privae) Limited vs Chairman, Town Committee, Uthal1995 CLC 1809 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Central Labour Union, Three Stars Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Multan1995 PLC 552 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Central Labour Union, Three Stars Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Multan1995 PLC 217 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
- Chartered Bank vs Shirin Baiy Sajjan And Another1995 MLD 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
- Catholic Church vs The Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab1995 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi vs Sh. Muhammad Saeed And Another1995 MLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Sharif through Legal1995 PLD Supreme Court 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising from a long-standing land dispute regarding property forming part of Ayub National Park. The predecessor of the respondents originally instituted a suit for possession, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld in appeal and review by the District Judge. A Single Judge of the High Court subsequently condoned the delay and allowed the second appeal, but a Division Bench reversed this decision in Letters Patent Appeal, finding the second appeal hopelessly time-barred. The core legal question revolved around the computation of limitation for filing a second appeal and whether time spent prosecuting a review petition before the District Judge could be excluded. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that once time begins to run it does not stop, and the time spent on a review petition cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when filing an appeal against the original appellate decree. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a revision be maintained against an appealable judgment and decree under section 115, C.P.C.?
- Whether the time spent in prosecuting a review petition before a District Judge can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act when filing a second appeal against the original appellate decree?
- Does time once begun to run stop during the prosecution of a review petition?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a single judge in condoning delay if it is contrary to settled legal principles and the result of misreading the record?
- Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Rawalpindi vs Sheikh1995 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership rights of land surrounding a cinema property in Rawalpindi. The respondent, claiming ownership of the land through a family agreement and inheritance, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the Cantonment Board, which had been collecting parking fees on the disputed land. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the respondent's suit, finding that the transfer documents only conveyed rights to the building itself, not the surrounding compound. However, the High Court reversed these findings and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The Cantonment Board appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the transfer of evacuee rights in a building necessarily includes the surrounding compound or land. The Supreme Court, noting the need for a reappraisal of the evidence regarding the scope of the transfer documents, granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court's decision was legally sound in its interpretation of the property transfer.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of evacuee rights in a building automatically include the surrounding compound or land?
- Is a High Court's finding on the scope of a property transfer subject to reappraisal by the Supreme Court when the lower courts reached a contrary conclusion?
- Cantonment Board through Executive Officer vs Secretary, Government1995 CLC 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board Through Cantonment Executive Officer, Sialkot vs Haji1995 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board Rawalpindi vs (SH.) Muhammad SaeedK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
- Cafe Shakufaan Eating House/Restaurant vs The Controller,1995 CLC 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- C.W.S. (India) Ltd. and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 741 208 I T R 649 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This batch of appeals concerns the interpretation of Section 40(a)(v) and Section 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the deductibility of expenditure incurred by an assessee for employee benefits and asset usage. The core legal question was whether the ceiling on expenditure prescribed in Section 40(a)(v) applied to assets used by an employee, given the restrictive phrase "such employee." The Supreme Court held that the ceiling applies to both direct benefits and the use of assets by employees. The Court rejected the argument that "such employee" limited the provision's scope, noting that a literal interpretation leading to discriminatory or incongruous results must be avoided. The Court affirmed that statutory interpretation must give effect to the legislative object, and where literal construction leads to absurdity, the language may be modified to align with the statute's purpose. Additionally, the Court held that the term "allowance" in the relevant provisions includes depreciation allowance. The appeals were largely dismissed, affirming the applicability of the expenditure ceiling to asset usage.
Questions settled- Does the ceiling on expenditure under Section 40(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, apply to assets used by an employee even if the employee is not in receipt of other benefits?
- Does the term "allowance" in Section 40(a)(v) and Section 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, include depreciation allowance?
- Can a court modify the literal language of a statute to avoid an absurd or discriminatory result that contradicts the legislative intent?
- Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 1333 [2111 T R 218] · Supreme Court of India · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
- Builders Hardwares, Karachi vs Syed Aslam Mian1995 PLC 340 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-23Read full judgment →
- Builders Associations of India vs Union of India and others1995 PTD 1307 209 I T R 877 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
- Brothers Steel Ltd. and others vs Mian Mirajuddin and 15 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions challenging a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court under its company jurisdiction, which directed the Corporate Law Authority to appoint an Inspector to investigate the affairs of the petitioner companies under Section 265(a) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The respondents, members of a family-owned corporate group, alleged oppression, misappropriation of funds, fabrication of records, and failure to hold statutory meetings. The petitioners resisted, arguing that a family settlement had already been implemented and that there was no legal evidence to justify the drastic measure of an investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that proceedings under Section 265 of the Ordinance do not require a full-fledged trial or formal recording of evidence. The Court held that the company judge only needs to be prima facie satisfied on the basis of the material presented that an investigation is warranted. The Court further affirmed that unsigned or partially executed family settlements do not divest shareholders of their locus standi when company registers have not been rectified.
Questions settled- Whether a full-fledged trial and formal recording of evidence are required before a court can direct an investigation into a company's affairs under Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- What is the standard of proof required for a Company Judge to exercise discretion and order an investigation under Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Does an unexecuted or partially signed family settlement divest a shareholder of their locus standi to seek an investigation if the official company registers have not been rectified?
- Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs The Secretary to Government1995 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) Manzoor Malik vs The State1995 MLD 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
- Bostan vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
- Bilawar Khan vs Amir Sabir Rehman1995 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- Bilal Bin Zaheer vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP), Karachi through Managing Director and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
- Bharat Hari Singhania and others vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax and others1995 PTD 997 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Begum Shehia Leghari Widow of Sir Nawab Muhammad Jamal KhanK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 191 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
- Begum Hamid Mehmood and 2 others vs Muhammad Masood1995 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 22-6-1994, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision petitions arising out of pre-emption suits. The petitioners had purchased agricultural land through separate sale-deeds, which the respondent pre-empted by filing suits in 1980. The petitioners contested the suits by asserting an earlier oral purchase in 1976 with contemporaneous delivery of possession, contending that the subsequent sale-deeds were merely confirmations of the prior oral sale, making the pre-emption suits time-barred. The trial court decreed the respondent's suits, and both the appellate and revisional courts dismissed the petitioners' challenges. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the lower courts misread and ignored material oral and documentary evidence regarding the delivery of possession, including an agreement deed dated 5th March 1977 and Khasra Girdawari entries, and discarded genuine proof without cogent reasons. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to consider whether the lower courts ignored material evidence and based their findings on surmises and conjectures.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit is barred by time when the vendee sets up an earlier oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession?
- Can a subsequent sale-deed be treated merely as a confirmation of a prior oral sale for the purpose of limitation in pre-emption suits?
- Whether the revisional and appellate courts' dismissal of a claim ignoring material documentary and oral evidence regarding delivery of possession warrants leave to appeal?
- Begum Farkhanda Akhtar and others vs Capt. M. Asif Akhtar and others1995 CLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from an administration suit concerning the estate of a deceased Air Vice Marshal. The core legal question was whether the widow of the deceased, defendant No. 1, was entitled to be examined by a local commissioner under the exemption provisions for women who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public. The trial court rejected her application for a commission, finding she was not a Parda-observing lady and that her claim of ailment was unsubstantiated. The High Court upheld this decision, dismissing the revision in limine. The court held that the determination of whether a woman is entitled to such exemption must be based on current societal customs and manners, rather than outdated practices. It emphasized that as societal norms evolve and women increasingly participate in public life and professional spheres, the strict application of Parda-observance as a ground for exemption is diminishing. The court affirmed that trial judges retain discretion to manage such examinations in private settings, such as chambers, to balance privacy concerns with the necessity of personal appearance.
Questions settled- Does the exemption from personal appearance in court under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to all women regardless of their social habits?
- Should the determination of whether a woman is a 'Parda-observing lady' be based on historical customs or contemporary societal norms?
- Can a trial court refuse a request for examination by a local commissioner if the applicant is found to regularly appear in public?
- Beenish Birlas vs University of Punjab and others1995 MLD 824 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
- Beenish Birlas vs University of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 824 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
- Bashiruddin vs The Government of N.W.F.P. through Collector and 61995 CLC 1394 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of four consolidated writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, whereby an evacuee land allotment and subsequent mutations were cancelled on the ground that the original claim and allotment were bogus, forged, and obtained through fraud. The core legal questions involved whether the cancellation orders were passed without notice, whether the matter constituted a past and closed transaction barred by the repeal of evacuee laws, and whether subsequent transferees were protected as bona fide purchasers under the Transfer of Property Act. The Peshawar High Court held that fraud vitiates the most solemn transactions, rendering fraudulent allotments nullities that can be cancelled at any time irrespective of the repeal of the settlement laws, and that official acts regarding inquiries and notices carry a presumption of regularity. Furthermore, the Court held that the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is inapplicable to evacuee property allotments, which are subject to the inherent cancellation powers under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Consequently, all four writ petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of evacuee land obtained through fraud can be cancelled after the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Does a subsequent purchaser of evacuee property enjoy protection as a bona fide transferee under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act against the cancellation of an underlying fraudulent allotment?
- Whether a tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction possesses the inherent power to recall or cancel an order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
- Can the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 be barred by sub-constitutional limitations regarding pending proceedings before settlement authorities?
- Bashir vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 276 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- Bashir Khan vs The State1995 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the High Court confirming the death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Anwar Khan. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the effect of an alleged discrepancy between the time of the incident and the receipt of the dead body at the mortuary, and whether partial disbelieving of eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused requires strong corroboration for the remaining accused. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies in medical evidence regarding the time of delivery of the dead body do not falsify consistent eyewitness testimony, and that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan. The conviction of the appellant was upheld as the eyewitnesses remained consistent and unshaken, and the appeal was dismissed, laying down principles regarding the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of receipt of a dead body at the mortuary are sufficient to discard eyewitness accounts?
- Does the acquittal of some co-accused based on the benefit of doubt necessitate mandatory corroboration for the conviction of the main assailant?
- Whether the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach during post-mortem examination conclusively disproves the time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution?
- Can the testimony of related witnesses be discredited solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of direct enmity?
- Bashir Begum vs Safdar Ali and others1995 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court acquitting respondent No. 1 of murder and murderous assault charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had previously convicted respondent No. 1 under Section 302 and sentenced him to death, while acquitting five co-accused. The prosecution case rested on ocular testimony from injured and eyewitnesses who claimed respondent No. 1 fired at the deceased, supported by an injury sustained by respondent No. 1 during the incident. The High Court rejected the eyewitness testimony entirely and set aside the conviction. The core legal question is whether the High Court's evaluation of the ocular testimony and the corroborative value of the injuries on the accused warranted setting aside the acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the grounds upon which the High Court founded the acquittal required further examination, particularly regarding the confirmatory piece of evidence presented by the accused's injuries. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the eyewitness testimony of injured witnesses in a murder trial?
- Does the presence of injuries on the accused serve as sufficient corroboration of his participation in the crime?
- On what grounds can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- Bashir alias Bashira and anothers vs The State and others1995 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involved criminal appeals arising from a High Court judgment regarding convictions for dacoity and murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of injured witnesses required independent corroboration to sustain convictions, particularly when identification occurred during a chaotic night incident. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of two appellants, finding that their immediate arrest and the recovery of stolen property shortly after the crime provided sufficient corroboration to satisfy the rule of prudence. Conversely, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of three other co-accused, noting a lack of corroborative evidence linking them to the crime. The Court laid down the principle that while injured witnesses are generally credible, the rule of prudence necessitates independent corroboration for each accused when identification is based on personal impression during a night occurrence. Such corroboration need not be conclusive on its own but must sufficiently point to the individual accused's participation in the offence to ensure the safe administration of justice.
Questions settled- Does the rule of prudence require independent corroboration of ocular testimony for each accused in a criminal case?
- Can an appeal against acquittal be dismissed in the absence of the accused if they have absconded?
- Is the immediate arrest of an accused and recovery of stolen property sufficient corroboration for conviction in a dacoity case?
- Bashir Ahmed vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge requiring affidavits from all surviving heirs of the deceased for a compromise application under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case under Section 302 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The core legal question was whether siblings of an unmarried deceased person are necessary parties to a compromise when the father is alive. The court held that under Islamic inheritance law, where the mother had predeceased, the father was the sole legal heir of the unmarried deceased, excluding the brothers and sisters, and thus possessed the exclusive right to effect a valid compromise. The key principle laid down is that the right to compound an offence involving Diyat and inheritance of the deceased's estate follows the Muslim Law of Inheritance, under which primary heirs exclude collateral heirs.
Questions settled- Whether brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased person are necessary parties to a compromise under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the father is alive?
- Who possesses the sole right to compromise an offence involving Diyat on behalf of an unmarried deceased person under the Qisas and Diyat law when only the father survives among the parents?
- Does the Muslim Law of Inheritance govern the determination of legal heirs for the purpose of compounding an offence under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance?
- Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs and 4 others1995 SCMR 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a civil suit challenging an order of the Divisional Canal Officer regarding the preparation of a new Warabandi (water distribution schedule) following land consolidation. The petitioner, whose lands are situated at the tail end of the canal outlet, contested the reallocation of 'Nikal' (excess water/last turn) to the respondents, arguing that their historical entitlement based on land location remained unchanged. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the petitioner, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, holding the Canal Officer's order valid. The Lahore High Court upheld this reversal. The core legal question was whether the Canal Authorities' decision regarding Warabandi and the distribution of Nikal was legally sustainable and whether the courts could interfere with such technical determinations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the preparation of Warabandi is the exclusive technical responsibility of Canal Authorities. The Court affirmed that no irrigator has a vested right to Nikal, which typically follows the last turn of water distribution. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does an irrigator have a vested right to the use of 'Nikal' in a Warabandi schedule?
- Is the preparation of Warabandi and the distribution of canal water the exclusive responsibility of Canal Authorities?
- Can civil courts interfere with the technical determination of water distribution schedules by Canal Authorities?
- Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Ijaz Ahmed and others1995 P Cr. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs I. G. Police Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Akbar and others1995 P Cr. L J 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the order passed by the trial court dismissing a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the non-attendance of the complainant and witnesses. The core legal question is whether the trial court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to dismiss a complaint after process had already been issued under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The court held that once process has been issued upon finding sufficient grounds to proceed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appropriate provisions in such circumstances for a Sessions case are Section 265-H or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which require granting an opportunity of being heard. The revision application is allowed, the impugned dismissal order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back for proceedings in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after process has already been issued?
- What are the applicable provisions for concluding a Sessions case when a complainant fails to attend hearings after the issuance of process?
- Whether an order dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable after finding sufficient grounds to proceed?
- Bashir Ahmed vs Abdul WahidK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Usman alias Chara and others1995 P Cr. L J 1909 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 1986 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Principal, College of Home Economics, Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 947 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1995 SCMR 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the refusal of the Revenue Authority to grant him proprietary rights over State land. The petitioner held land under three different schemes, totaling 103 Kanals and 1 Marla. The Revenue Authority denied his application for proprietary rights under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme, citing a policy that a person could obtain only one grant. The petitioner contended that clauses 3 and 4 of the Statement of Terms and Conditions for the purchase of proprietary rights should be read together, arguing that they allow a lessee to acquire proprietary rights up to the limit of a subsistence holding, rather than prohibiting all grants if the total area exceeds that limit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the argument that the petitioner might be entitled to rights up to the subsistence holding limit, and ordered status quo regarding the lease to the extent of 100 Kanals.
Questions settled- Can a lessee holding State land under multiple schemes be granted proprietary rights up to the limit of a subsistence holding?
- Does the ownership of land exceeding a subsistence holding automatically disqualify a lessee from obtaining any proprietary rights under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Inayat Ullah And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 683 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Patwari vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 730 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Munir vs Mrs. Tahira Qureshi1997 MLD 29 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Khan and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Ludden, District Vehari and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1964 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 615 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 496 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the conviction of the petitioners on a murder charge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the established principles governing the appraisal of evidence were correctly applied by the lower courts in convicting the petitioners. Granting leave to appeal, the Court decided to examine the correctness of the evidentiary appreciation that led to the conviction. The key principle laid down concerns the rigorous scrutiny and correct application of evidentiary standards by appellate and trial courts in capital cases.
Questions settled- Whether the principles governing the appraisal of evidence were correctly applied to convict the petitioners on a murder charge?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to examine the misreading or non-reading of evidence in a murder case?
- Bashir Ahmad and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Alias Billa vs The State1995 MLD 1114 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Basharat and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 PPC for the murder of their maternal uncle. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, motive, and recoveries, given the defense's plea of a false implication and a blind murder. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious infirmities, including a dishonestly recorded FIR, implausible conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses, an unnatural sequence of events regarding the motive, and unreliable weapon recoveries. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that once ocular testimony is found untrustworthy, unnatural, and uncorroborated by circumstantial evidence, abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a capital conviction, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the falsification of the time and place of recording an FIR render the entire investigation dishonest and warrant caution by the court in appreciating evidence?
- Can the absence of enmity between eyewitnesses and the accused alone stamp their statements with truth if their presence is unnatural and improbable?
- Is the mere circumstance of abscondence sufficient on its own to maintain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code when ocular and recovery evidence has been disbelieved?
- Basharat Ali and another. vs The Deputy Superintendent, Central ExcisePTCL 1995 CL. 429 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Bartha Ram vs Lala Mehar Lal Bheel and another1995 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court judgment holding that after the notification of a returned candidate, proceedings before the Election Commission of Pakistan seeking a recount were coram non judice. The appellant challenged the election result for a reserved provincial seat by petitioning the Election Commission under Sections 103 and 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 after the official Gazette notification of the respondent's election. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission retains jurisdiction under Sections 103 and 103-AA to recount votes after the official notification of the returned candidate, or if the sole remedy lies via an election petition before an Election Tribunal under Section 52. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 52 is expressed in negative terms to exclude the jurisdiction of all other forums after the official Gazette notification. Since the petition raised no allegations of grave illegalities to declare the poll void under Section 103-AA, the Election Commission was coram non judice and the appellant's exclusive remedy was an election petition before the Election Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the Election Commission have jurisdiction under Sections 103 and 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 to entertain a recount petition after the official Gazette notification of a returned candidate?
- Is an election petition before an Election Tribunal under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 the exclusive remedy to challenge an election after the notification of the returned candidate?
- Does a petition seeking merely a recount of votes fall within the scope of Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Barrister Rashid Akhtar Qureshi vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sindh and 6 others1995 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- Barrister Rashid Akhtar Qureshi vs Province of Sindh Through Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Sindh And 6 Other1995 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- Barkatullah Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 923 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-03Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ullah Siddique vs Mst. Samirunnisa and others1995 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a specific property portion. The core legal question was whether the disputed plot of land, transferred to the respondent by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1976, had already been validly transferred to the petitioner in 1960 as part of a larger property. The petitioner argued that the disputed area was part of his earlier transfer and that the respondent's subsequent transfer was illegal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the disputed property was included in his original transfer or that he was in occupation of the vacant plot in question. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's new arguments regarding his association with a third party, noting they were raised for the first time on appeal and contradicted the record. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the disputed property was not part of the petitioner's original transfer, thus dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new contention regarding the source of their title for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a prior transfer order by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner automatically encompass all subsequent claims to adjacent or disputed plots?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner fails to establish that the disputed property was part of their original transfer?
- Barkat Hussain vs The State1995 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought suspension of sentence and bail from the Supreme Court after the Lahore High Court rejected his application. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail when the statutory period for deciding the appeal, as prescribed under section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, had expired without the appeal being finalized. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal was legally flawed because it failed to provide substantive reasons for denying bail and incorrectly treated the pendency of the appeal since 1991 as a reason to deny relief rather than as a ground for granting it. The Court reaffirmed the principle that when the statutory period for the disposal of an appeal has elapsed and the appeal remains undecided despite judicial directions for its hearing, the accused is entitled to the grant of bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and admitted the petitioner to bail.
Questions settled- Does the mere assertion that there are no grounds for suspension of sentence satisfy the legal requirement for refusing bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the pendency of an appeal beyond the statutory period a valid ground for granting bail to a convicted person?
- Should the failure of the court to decide an appeal within the statutory timeframe be construed in favor of the accused when considering a bail application?
- Barkat Ali Isani vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 282 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali Centre through Abdul Hamid Khan, Managing Partner, Lahore1995 PTD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali and anothers vs Mst. Fatima Bai and 2 other1995 CLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from constructing a multi-storey building on an adjacent plot, alleging violations of lease terms, approved building plans, and the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979. The plaintiffs claimed the construction infringed upon their easement rights of privacy, light, and air, and violated compulsory open space requirements. The core legal questions were whether the defendants breached building regulations regarding open space and whether the plaintiffs, who allegedly violated building laws themselves, were entitled to discretionary injunctive relief. The Court held that the defendants were constructing in accordance with approved plans and had maintained the required compulsory open space. Furthermore, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for easement infringement and noted that the plaintiffs had themselves violated building laws on their own plots, leading to forfeiture. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, holding that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and cannot enforce building regulations they have personally violated.
Questions settled- Can a party who has violated building construction laws seek an injunction against a neighbor for similar alleged violations?
- Is a court-appointed commissioner for local inspection required to provide notice to the defendants before conducting the inspection?
- Can a third party enforce restrictive covenants contained in a lease agreement between a lessor and a lessee?
- Does the failure to provide notice to the opposite party before the appointment of a local commissioner render the commissioner's report inadmissible?
- Banny Mian and 11 others vs M/s. H. Nizam Din & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1995 PLC 77 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Bank of America, Karachi through Vice-President vs Muhammad Akram1995 PLC 253 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
- Banarus Khan vs The State1995 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed in absentia by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu. The appellant challenged the conviction, despite the appeal being time-barred, arguing that the trial court committed a grave miscarriage of justice by failing to examine the Investigating Officer, who was the principal witness regarding the F.I.R. (dying declaration). The core legal question was whether the High Court could treat a time-barred appeal as a criminal revision to rectify a serious illegality. The Court held that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer constituted an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the wide revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court determined it had a duty to rectify errors causing grave injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for the examination of the Investigating Officer and the accused, affirming that the High Court's revisional power is an unfettered duty to ensure subordinate courts adhere to the law.
Questions settled- Can a time-barred criminal appeal be treated as a revision by the High Court to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice?
- Is the non-examination of the Investigating Officer a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the High Court have a duty to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct errors of subordinate courts?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the primary evidence, such as the F.I.R. (dying declaration), remains unproved due to the non-examination of the Investigating Officer?
- Banaras Khan and anothers vs Mst. Yasmeen Begum1997 MLD 1830 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-08Read full judgment →
- Banaras and others vs The State and others1995 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution relied upon ocular testimony and an alleged dying declaration to secure the conviction. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained despite significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and doubts surrounding the authenticity of the dying declaration. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. The court found that the ocular witnesses were unreliable as they falsely implicated other co-accused and their testimony regarding the weapons and nature of injuries was irreconcilably contradicted by medical reports. Additionally, the dying declaration was deemed unreliable due to the absence of a medical certificate certifying the deceased's fitness, visible interpolations, and contradictions by other prosecution witnesses. The court established that where prosecution evidence is inherently defective, contradictory, and fails to prove the motive, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when ocular testimony is irreconcilably contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does the false implication of co-accused by eye-witnesses render their entire testimony unreliable?
- What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration that lacks a medical certificate of fitness and contains unexplained interpolations?
- Is the prosecution required to prove the motive for an offence when it has been explicitly advanced in the case?
- Balqees Akhtar vs Iqbal Bosan and others1995 CLC 914 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the District Collector, Gujrat, which reversed the finding of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, granting maintenance allowance to the petitioner for three years until the completion of Iddat. The core legal question was whether the District Collector lawfully set aside the maintenance allowance awarded by the Arbitration Council based on a separate maintenance decree passed by a Family Court for minor children. The Lahore High Court held that the proceedings before the Arbitration Council and the Family Court are entirely different, governed by distinct legal provisions, and that the District Collector's order was devoid of reasons, misapplied the law, and ignored the evidence on record. The Court set aside the order of the District Collector and restored the maintenance decree of the Arbitration Council, affirming that a husband has a duty to maintain his wife and that maintenance under relevant statutory provisions serves different purposes than proceedings before a Family Court.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings before an Arbitration Council for maintenance of a wife are distinct from proceedings before a Family Court?
- Can a District Collector set aside a maintenance allowance awarded by an Arbitration Council based on a separate maintenance decree passed for minor children by a Family Court?
- Is an order of the District Collector reducing maintenance to the Iddat period sustainable when it fails to appraise evidence and apply the relevant law?
- Balkrishna Harivallabhdas (Huf) vs Wealth Tax Officer and another1995 PTD 1280 [211 ITR 246] · Gujarat High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Bakht Ali, Etc. vs (Mst.) Sharifan Deceased by Legal RepresentativesK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 430 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
- Bahadur vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 176 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
- Bahadur Shah and 6 others vs Acquisition Collector VI, Terbela Dam, Tehsil Haripur and 2 others1995 SCMR 1077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment regarding compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam project. The acquisition process commenced with a notification under the Land Acquisition Act in 1967, followed by an award in 1973. The litigation history is extensive, involving multiple remands and disputes over the admissibility of evidence, specifically regarding the reliance on previous judgments and Khasra Girdawari. The petitioners argued that the Court should take judicial notice of inflation and the upward trend in land prices to enhance compensation, despite the absence of specific evidence on the record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether judicial notice of price increases is permissible in the absence of evidence and, if so, what criteria should govern such enhancements. The Court recognized that while previous jurisprudence requires evidence to support claims of price escalation, the unique circumstances of this case, where parties had exhausted opportunities to lead evidence, necessitated further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Can a court take judicial notice of inflation and rising land prices in land acquisition cases in the absence of specific evidence on the record?
- What is the appropriate criterion for determining the increase in the price of acquired land when no evidence has been adduced by the parties?
- Bahadur Khan Alias Bahaderi And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1813 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
- Badruddin vs Presiding Officer and 4 others1995 PLC 332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
- Badar Aziz vs Mst. Haseena Khatoon1995 CLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
- Babu vs The State and another1995 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner and two co-accused were tried for an offence under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Zardad Khan. The Trial Court acquitted the petitioner and co-accused, citing a dark night incident, doubtful identification, delay in the F.I.R., contradiction between ocular and medical evidence, and lack of crime empty recovery. The complainant filed a revision application after the State failed to appeal the acquittal. The High Court accepted the revision and remanded the case for re-trial against the petitioner alone, holding that direct evidence, medical corroboration, and weapon recovery established complicity. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with an acquittal judgment in revision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence and determine if the High Court's interference conformed to established case-law guidelines regarding acquittals, while staying the trial court proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal in a revision application filed by a private complainant?
- Does the High Court have the authority to remand a case for re-trial against an acquitted person based on the re-evaluation of ocular and medical evidence?
- When can the Supreme Court grant leave to re-appraise evidence regarding an interference with acquittal by the High Court?