Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Sarfraz and 7 others vs Muzaffar Khan1994 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  pre-emptionprinciple of sinkerburden of proofadmissibility of evidenceKhasra Girdawarisrevision petitionsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of land via a registered deed dated 14-1-1978. The respondent, claiming to be a collateral of the vendor, successfully pre-empted the sale in the trial court, which found the petitioners' evidence regarding pedigree tables insufficient. The appellate court maintained the decree, invoking the principle of sinker, noting that while the petitioners were recorded tenants, the joint nature of the sale precluded them from asserting a superior right of pre-emption. The High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition, primarily holding that the Khasra Girdawaris supporting the petitioners' tenancy claims were not properly exhibited and thus inadmissible. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court adopted an inconsistent approach by relying on unexhibited documents produced by the respondent while rejecting similar unexhibited evidence favorable to the petitioners, and whether the burden of proof regarding the superior right of pre-emption was correctly applied. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions regarding evidentiary standards and the burden of proof in pre-emption litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can rely on unexhibited documents while rejecting similar unexhibited documents produced by the opposing party?
  • Does the principle of sinker apply to a joint sale where individual purchasers are recorded tenants of the suit land?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a superior right of pre-emption in a suit involving competing claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs The State1994 MLD 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad Bhatti vs House Building Finance Corporation1994 MLD 939 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate vs Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and another1994 MLD 397 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16
  quo warrantoelection processconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitynecessary partyjudicial interferenceelection petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a writ of quo warranto against the respondents, alleging they were disqualified from serving as members of the National Assembly under Article 63(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner requested the Court to prohibit the issuance of election notifications and prevent the respondents from taking their oaths. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a writ against individuals not yet holding public office, the necessity of impleading the Election Commission of Pakistan, and the scope of judicial interference in the election process. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the respondents were not yet holders of public office at the time of filing, and the petition was improperly constituted for failing to implead the Election Commission of Pakistan. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 225 of the Constitution, the election process is a continuous series of steps that cannot be challenged through Article 199 petitions, but only via election petitions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, having also become infructuous due to subsequent events.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against individuals who have not yet assumed public office?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable if a necessary party, such as the Election Commission of Pakistan, is not impleaded?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 bar the High Court from interfering in the election process under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Wajid Ali vs Hamid Nasir Chattha1994 MLD 492 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shah and anothers vs Rasul Bibi and 14 others1994 MLD 711 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan vs Not Found1994 PLC (C.S.) 1751 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-08-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Muqeem Khoso vs President of Pakistan1994 PLD Supreme Court 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-11
  disqualification for membershipmisconductabuse of powerloan disbursementparliamentary representativedisqualification tribunalcivil nature of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct appeal under Article 7 of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 against the judgment of the Disqualification Tribunal, Karachi, which found the appellant, a member of the National Assembly, guilty of misconduct and disqualified him from being elected or chosen as a member of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly for a period of seven years. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant abused his official position as a Member of National Assembly to prevail upon bank authorities to disburse a previously sanctioned loan in two instalments instead of twelve without fulfilling pre-conditions, and whether such acts constituted misconduct under the Order. By a majority view (Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.; Sajjad Ali Shah, J., dissenting), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and disqualification. The court laid down the principle that proceedings under the Order are of a civil nature rather than criminal, and that a public representative utilizing their position to secure financial favours or bypass institutional pre-conditions in loan disbursements amounts to an abuse of position and misconduct under the second part of Article 2(a) of the Order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 are of a civil or criminal nature?
  • Does securing the release of a bank loan in fewer instalments by exploiting the position of a Member of Parliament amount to misconduct under Article 2(a) of President Order No. 17 of 1977?
  • Whether the fact that a loan is fully secured by mortgage absolves a public representative from liability for misconduct if official position is abused to alter loan disbursement terms?
  • Is a reference made by the President under President Order No. 17 of 1977 competently authenticated when signed by the Secretary to the President?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 379 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-07-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1994 CLC 681 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and others vs Hmi Ahmad1994 MLD 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Begum vs Settlement Commissioner1994 CLC 359 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bakhsh vs Mst. Maqsood Bibi1994 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13
  arbitration agreementsecondary evidenceproof of loss of documentattestation of documentsQanun-e-Shahadatmaking award rule of courtremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from an application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to make an arbitration award a rule of the court, alongside an objection petition challenging the appointment of the arbitrator and the execution of the arbitration agreement. The trial court overruled the objections regarding the agreement's execution and made the award a rule of the court, except for the portion affecting a minor who was not a party. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the arbitration agreement was not duly proved under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and that secondary evidence of the agreement was wrongly permitted without legally proving its loss. The Lahore High Court held that Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 applies strictly to documents required by law to be attested, and arbitration agreements carry no such statutory requirement. However, the Court held that the trial court erred in admitting secondary evidence based on a vague statement by the arbitrator without requiring proper proof of loss or exhaustion of search efforts. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 apply to an arbitration agreement?
  • What proof of loss is required before a party can be permitted to lead secondary evidence of a document?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with the trial court's discretion in permitting secondary evidence?
  • Whether an arbitration agreement requires attestation by two marginal witnesses under the law.
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar and 5 others vs Rashid Ahmad and 12 others1994 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-09
  mutationrevenue recordcompromise decreeconstitutional jurisdictionland titleplenary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over land ownership. The original owner gifted his land to his sister, which was later settled via a compromise decree splitting the property equally. However, the revenue record erroneously reflected the transfer of the entire land to the petitioners, who had purchased the sister's share. Revenue authorities subsequently corrected the mutation to align with the compromise decree and the registered sale deed. The Supreme Court addressed whether the revenue authorities' correction of the mutation was subject to interference under Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that mutation entries do not establish title, which must be independently proven. Since the revenue authorities were merely correcting an obvious mistake to align with the registered deed and the compromise, their actions were not subject to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that if the petitioners' title was in doubt, they must seek relief through courts of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Do mutation entries in revenue records establish title to land?
  • Can the correction of a mutation entry by revenue authorities be challenged under Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a party claiming a cloud on their title to land after a mutation correction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmed Yar Jang vs Sardar Noor Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-16
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintcourt-feecivil revisionmerger of ordersvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit for pre-emption where the trial court decreed the suit, finding the valuation and court-fee payment proper. The High Court, in revision, subsequently rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with interim orders regarding the submission of revenue records for court-fee calculation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in this rejection. The Court established that interim or regulatory orders passed during the pendency of a suit merge into the final judgment and decree, losing their independent legal existence. Furthermore, for a court to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c), it must positively and specifically determine the exact amount of deficit court-fee payable and grant the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficiency. An order merely directing a party to calculate fees based on external documents does not constitute a valid direction for the purposes of rejecting a plaint. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the trial court's decree restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim or regulatory order passed during the pendency of a suit survive after the final decree is passed?
  • What are the mandatory conditions that must be satisfied before a court can reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court reject a plaint for non-payment of court-fee if the court has not specifically determined the exact amount of the deficit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmed Yar Jang vs Sardar Moor Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-16
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintcourt-feecivil revisionmerger of ordersvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption where the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the suit was properly valued and the court-fee paid was sufficient. However, the High Court, in revision, rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with interim directions regarding the payment of court-fee based on net profits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in its application of the law. The Court established that interim or regulatory orders passed during the pendency of a suit merge into the final decree and lose independent existence. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that for a plaint to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(c), the court must first positively and specifically determine the exact amount of deficit court-fee and grant the plaintiff reasonable time to make up such deficiency. As these conditions were not met, the High Court's rejection of the plaint was legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a specific determination of the deficit court-fee?
  • Do interim or regulatory orders passed during the pendency of a suit survive after the final decree is passed?
  • What are the mandatory conditions required for the rejection of a plaint due to deficient court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad And Others vs Assistant Commissoner And Other1994 CLC 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Saraj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 162 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Santa vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 79) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Sanobar Khan vs Muhammad Younis1994 CLC 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sandal Fibres Limited through Its Directors And Other vs GovernmentK.L.R. 1994 CivU Cases 378 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 57) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Settlement Commissioner and another1994 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-30
  Settlement Scheme No. IXResidual PropertiesEqual treatmentTransfer of propertyDisposal of Residual Properties SchemeAdministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of residual property (Ahata No. 1171, Sialkot) under Settlement Scheme No. IX. The appellant sought the transfer of a portion of the property based on his possession and construction thereon, similar to other occupants (Abdul Ghaffar etc.) who had successfully obtained transfers. Despite a Settlement Inspector's report confirming the appellant's possession and construction, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dismissed his application, citing the need for auction, while granting transfers to others in identical circumstances. The appellant's revision petitions were unsuccessful, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to equal treatment under the law, given that his situation was indistinguishable from other beneficiaries whose transfers were approved after the withdrawal of demolition notices by the Cantonment Board. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant's case was identical to those granted relief, he was entitled to the same treatment. The Court allowed the appeal, directing the transfer of the constructed portion to the appellant upon payment of the requisite price.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an applicant is entitled to the transfer of residual property if their case is factually identical to other applicants who have already been granted such transfers?
  • Does the withdrawal of a demolition notice by a Cantonment Board create a basis for the transfer of residual property under Settlement Scheme No. IX?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others1994 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-26
  double murderocular testimonyinterested witnessmedical evidencerecovery of weaponscommon objectcriminal appealsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder case where six accused were convicted under sections 302/149, 324/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the ocular witnesses, the validity of the medical evidence regarding an alleged self-inflicted injury, and whether the sentences imposed by the High Court warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony, motive, medical evidence, and the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The Court affirmed the convictions, finding that the testimony of an independent, disinterested witness (the injured party) was reliable and did not require further corroboration. Furthermore, the Court refused to enhance the sentences, reasoning that where multiple accused act in concert and specific roles are difficult to isolate, life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that medical evidence corroborating the ocular account and the recovery of incriminating weapons at the instance of the accused are sufficient to sustain convictions in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused corroborate the ocular account?
  • Is the testimony of an interested witness necessarily unreliable if supported by a disinterested witness?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment when specific roles in a joint attack are difficult to distinguish?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Kiian vs Province of Baloch1stan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 152 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan vs Feroze Din1994 MLD 618 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Samson Masih alias Pappu vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Samson John and 4 others vs Muhammad Farooq1994 MLD 52 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Samanda And Other vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 81) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-06-19Read full judgment →
• Samanda and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1150 · Board of Revenue · 1993-06-19Read full judgment →
• Samad Khan and anothers vs Bhag Bhari and 2 others1994 MLD 317 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Salma Hamid vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others1994 MLD 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Salehon and others vs Mst. Sardaran through Legal Heirs and others1994 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-27
  res judicatacollateral successioncustomary lawlimited estateleave to appealancestral property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court dismissing their Regular Second Appeal, which had affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of their declaratory suit. The petitioners claimed a 3/8 share in the estate of Mst. Sardaran and Shihan as collaterals. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata and whether the promulgation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, provided a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly applied the principle of res judicata, as a previous suit filed in 1954 regarding the same land had already attained finality, wherein the land was found to be non-ancestral and the plaintiffs failed to prove they were collaterals. The Court laid down that a prior final adjudication regarding collateral status and the nature of the property operates as res judicata, and the termination of limited estates under customary law by subsequent legislation does not revive already adjudicated and finalized claims where collateral status was not established. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of limited estates under Customary Law by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, provide a fresh cause of action to plaintiffs whose previous suit regarding collateral status was dismissed on merits?
  • Whether a previous finding that plaintiffs are not proved to be collaterals operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration of inheritance?
  • Can a party claim inheritance as a collateral when findings in a prior final judgment establish that they are not near collaterals of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad And Others vs Custodian Evacuee Trust Property1994 CLC 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Saleemullah vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division And 3Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1027 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 9 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• Saleem Parvaiz Siddiqui vs Mst. Shamsa Zarin and others1994 MLD 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar vs Province of Punjab1994 CLC 2290 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15
  constitutional petitionwrit petitionimmovable propertycivil disputealternative remedycivil suitdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of Pakistan Railways and allottees of plots on land leased to a cooperative housing society, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 alleging that the Municipal Corporation unlawfully demolished their constructions. During the hearing, it was revealed that a civil suit concerning the same immovable property and dispute was already pending before a civil court, in which a temporary injunction had been issued and confirmed in favor of the society, a fact omitted from the writ petition. The Lahore High Court held that a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy for resolving title and property disputes, and the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked or substituted for ordinary civil remedies when a suit is already pending and no exceptional circumstances or statutory violations by a public authority are established. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked to resolve property and title disputes when an ordinary civil suit is already pending?
  • Does the existence of an alternative remedy by way of a regular civil suit bar the entertainment of a constitutional petition relating to immovable property?
  • Whether suppression of the fact regarding the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same subject-matter warrants the dismissal of a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Longai and anothers vs Abida Sultana1994 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-12
  dowry articlesrecovery of movable propertyconcurrent findingsexecuting court powersmatrimonial property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between the parties, wherein the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles and bridal gifts following the dissolution of her marriage. The trial court decreed the suit in her favour, a decision subsequently upheld by both the appellate and revisional courts. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings before the Supreme Court, primarily contending that the courts below erred in relying on a specific document (Exh. P.2) which the petitioner claimed was unsigned. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners raised only questions of fact already concurrently decided against them by the lower courts, which had also relied on an admission made by the petitioner in a separate application (Exh. P.3) regarding his intent to return the articles. While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that even where a decree for the delivery of movable property does not specify an alternative monetary value, the executing court possesses the authority under the Code of Civil Procedure to address such matters during execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executing court have the power to order monetary compensation in lieu of the delivery of movable property even if the original decree did not specify an alternative amount?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the possession of dowry articles?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamatullah And Another vs Cornpak Limited, Karachi And Another1994 PLC 655 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-07Read full judgment →
• Salam Din vs M.B.R. and others1994 MLD 564 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Rashid and 39 others vs The University of Punjab through its1994 MLD 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs Maud. Mahmood and 7 others1994 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29
  bail before arrestcancellation of bailmala fidesulterior motivespre-arrest bail conditionsstatus of accusedcognizable offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, in a case registered under sections 337/A-II, 337/F-I, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the respondents satisfied the stringent conditions required for the grant of pre-arrest bail, specifically the existence of mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the lower court acted without jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail as the essential prerequisites—namely, proof or specific assertion of mala fides and apprehended humiliation or harassment by the police or complainant—were absent, and sufficient incriminating material connected the accused to the crime. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and is not a privilege or prerogative based on the social status, profession, or educational background of an accused person, and that the rule requiring proof of mala fides for anticipatory bail must be strictly applied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without establishing mala fides or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Does the professional or social status of an accused person entitle them to special consideration or leniency in the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail before arrest be sustained when prima facie sufficient material connects the accused to a cognizable offence involving injuries on vital parts of the body?
  • Is the bald opinion of an investigating officer regarding a scuffle sufficient to displace the consistent statements of injured witnesses for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs The State1994 MLD 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Muhammad Younas1994 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Government of Balochistan Through Secretary1994 PLD Quetta 64 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali And Other vs M/s. Hino Pak Motors Limited, Karachi And Others1994 PLC 82 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sajawal vs Mst. Sobia Hameed And Other1994 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Sajad Ali vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Sain and others vs Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab1994 MLD 2143 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman Through Legal Heirs vs Rehmat Ali And 12 Other1994 CLC 313 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 87) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State1994 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-21
  fabrication of evidenceinvestigating officersupplementary statementsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of a police Sub-Inspector under Section 194 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly fabricating false evidence during a murder investigation. The core legal question was whether the appellant intentionally altered witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to align with medical evidence, or whether these were legitimate supplementary statements. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge, as no witnesses were examined to prove the alleged fabrication. Conversely, the appellant provided a plausible explanation that the statements were supplementary, a practice common in investigations, which was corroborated by defense witnesses, including one of the original witnesses who denied the fabrication. Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution's case lacked evidentiary support, and the appellant’s explanation raised a reasonable possibility of truth. Applying the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of supplementary statements by an investigating officer constitute the fabrication of false evidence under Section 194 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to examine any witnesses to substantiate the charge of fabricating evidence?
  • Can an investigating officer be convicted for fabricating evidence when the defense provides a plausible explanation for the discrepancy in witness statements that is supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Hanan vs Chairman, WAPDA And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07
  service lawpay scaleadministrative policyjudicial reviewdiscriminationterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the denial of a higher pay scale (BPS-15) for his position as a Theology Teacher. The petitioner, who served in BPS-9 from his appointment in 1970 until his retirement in 1990, alleged discrimination because another teacher in a different location held a higher grade. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal, ruling that the matter involved administrative policy rather than an actionable grievance, and that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the terms of his appointment. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the petitioner, having voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of his service at the time of appointment, had no legal basis to claim a higher pay scale retrospectively. The Court further affirmed that the up-gradation of posts is an administrative policy matter outside the scope of judicial interference, particularly when the petitioner has already retired from service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a higher pay scale based on discrimination if they voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of their appointment?
  • Is the up-gradation of a post in an educational institution a justiciable matter or an administrative policy matter?
  • Can a court interfere in administrative policy decisions regarding the up-gradation of posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Hanan vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1994 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-07
  service lawpay scaleadministrative policydiscriminationconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceupgradation of post
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding service conditions. The petitioner, a Theology Teacher who retired in 1990, sought relief on the grounds of discrimination, alleging that another teacher in a similar position had been granted a higher pay scale (BPS-15) than the BPS-9 scale he held throughout his service. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, having voluntarily accepted specific terms and conditions of service upon appointment, could subsequently claim a higher pay scale based on the upgradation of posts held by others, and whether such administrative policy matters are justiciable. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the petitioner had accepted his appointment terms voluntarily and could not claim a higher scale as a matter of right. The Court affirmed that the upgradation of posts is an administrative policy matter, and courts cannot interfere in such policy-making, particularly where the petitioner had already retired and accepted the original terms of service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim a higher pay scale based on the upgradation of posts held by other employees if they voluntarily accepted their own terms of service?
  • Is the upgradation of posts in an educational institution a justiciable matter for the courts?
  • Can a court interfere in administrative policy matters regarding the upgradation of posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saidullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 41 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmed vs M/s. Western Pakistan Tanneries, Hyderabad Through1994 PLC 609 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada vs Rozi Khan and others1994 PLD Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada vs Rozi Khan And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Pannah1994 PLD Supreme Court 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionhandwriting expertcomparison of signaturestandard of proofpreponderance of evidencemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a half-share of a house. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the agreement genuine. The appellate court reversed this, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's signature beyond reasonable doubt, and that the plaintiff's failure to examine a handwriting expert was fatal. The High Court dismissed the revision application, declining to disturb the finding of fact. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the appellate court applied an incorrect standard of proof and erred in law by assuming a handwriting expert was mandatory. The Court ruled that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, comparison of signatures by the court is a valid mode of proof. Finding that the appellate court misread evidence, ignored material admissions in the pleadings, and relied on minor contradictions, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree, establishing that revisional jurisdiction is attracted when lower courts base decisions on wrong legal propositions or misread vital evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a civil suit for specific performance is required to prove the execution of a disputed agreement beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is it a mandatory legal requirement to examine a handwriting expert to prove a disputed signature on a document?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction if an appellate court bases its decision on an incorrect proposition of law or misreads vital evidence?
  • What are the legally recognized modes of proving a signature or handwriting under the law of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Pannah1994 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionpreponderance of evidencestandard of proof in civil caseshandwriting expertmaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction regarding a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The trial court had decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, primarily questioning the authenticity of the respondent's signature based on a comparison of signatures and the absence of a handwriting expert, as well as the delay in attestation by an Oath Commissioner. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court erroneously applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is inapplicable to civil proceedings, and incorrectly emphasized the necessity of a handwriting expert. The Court held that the appellate court's approach contradicted the established rule of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, given that the appellate court may have acted illegally or with material irregularity in its assessment of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to civil proceedings for specific performance?
  • Does the failure to examine a handwriting expert in a civil suit regarding disputed signatures constitute a fatal flaw in the plaintiff's case?
  • When does an appellate court's misapplication of the standard of proof warrant interference by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghiruddin vs Muhammad Qassim and 6 others1994 MLD 487 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad vs Gulzar Khan and others1994 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Safeer Hussain vs Inspector-General of Police, I.C.T., Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 672 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-05Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ahmad vs Dr. Muhammad Shuja and others1994 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• Safdar Khan- vs Ch. Muhammad Saleem And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Safdar Khan vs Ch. Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hayat vs Ghulam Muhammad And Another1994 CLC 146 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs Nathey Khan And Other1994 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Randhawa vs Secretary, Agriculture Department, Lahore1994 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  service appealtime-barredcompulsory retirementPunjab Service Tribunalretrospective effectShariat jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as withdrawn. The petitioner, a civil servant, had been retired under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Following the dismissal of his initial departmental appeal, he filed a second, unauthorized appeal to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal after that was also dismissed. The petitioner contended that he had not withdrawn his appeal before the Tribunal and challenged the validity of his retirement based on Shariat rulings declaring provisions allowing retirement without show-cause notices as un-Islamic. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred, as he had no legal justification for pursuing a second departmental appeal rather than approaching the Tribunal after the first appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Shariat jurisdiction decisions do not have retrospective effect. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second departmental appeal, not provided for in service rules, a valid ground for condoning delay in approaching the Service Tribunal?
  • Do decisions rendered under Shariat jurisdiction have retrospective effect on service matters?
  • Does the filing of an unauthorized second departmental appeal toll the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeedullah Khan vs Allah Diwaya Etc(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 144) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Saeedul Hassan, Exadditional District and Sessions Judge vs Government of the Punjab through the Chief Secretary, Lahore1994 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantpersistent reputation of being corruptdepartmental inquirystandard of proofpersonal hearingjudicial officer misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his removal from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The core legal questions concerned whether the 'Authority' was obligated to grant a second personal hearing if the designated hearing officer’s report favored the accused, and whether proving a 'persistent reputation of being corrupt' necessitates specific instances of corruption or proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the Authority was not required to provide a further hearing. The Court ruled that the designated officer erred by applying the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' to a departmental inquiry and by demanding specific instances of corruption to substantiate a reputation-based charge. The Court affirmed that in disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is based on reasonable inferences from facts, and 'persistent reputation' is established by the general consensus of those in a position to observe the officer’s conduct, rather than isolated, proven incidents. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'Authority' under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, have to grant a second personal hearing if the designated officer's report is favorable to the accused?
  • Is the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' applicable to departmental or administrative inquiries?
  • Does a charge of 'persistent reputation of being corrupt' require proof of specific instances of corruption to be substantiated?
  • What is the scope of a designated officer's role when conducting a personal hearing under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Begum vs Shameem Ahmad1994 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-14
  ejectmentparting with possessionburden of proofpartnership deedlandlord and tenantsubletting
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the appellant landlord's ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the ground that the tenant had parted with possession of the rented premises. The core legal question was whether the respondent had discharged the burden of proof to rebut the allegation of parting with possession merely by producing a partnership deed and registration certificate, without producing mandated account books or proving continued physical possession. The Supreme Court held that while the initial burden lies on the landlord to prove that another person is in possession, simply producing a partnership deed and registration certificate is insufficient to rebut this if the landlord establishes exclusive physical use by a third party. The tenant must establish that they retain physical possession or a bona fide working presence. The case was remanded to the Rent Controller to allow parties to lead further evidence including tax and account documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere production of a partnership deed and registration certificate suffice to discharge the tenant's burden of proof when a landlord alleges parting with possession?
  • What constitutes handing over possession under section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the tenant in an ejectment application based on parting with possession of a rented tenement?
  • Is an adverse inference drawn against a party who fails to produce account books admitted to be in existence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabbani vs Directorgeneral Leather Industry Development1994 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23
  civil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionautonomous bodyadministrative controlexecutive resolutioncorporate status
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee of the Leather Industry Development Organization (LIDO), challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal, which was based on the finding that he was not a civil servant. The core legal question was whether an employee of LIDO, an organization under the administrative control of the Ministry of Industries, qualifies as a civil servant under the law, thereby granting the Federal Service Tribunal jurisdiction to adjudicate his service dispute. The Supreme Court held that LIDO was created by an executive resolution rather than by statute or incorporation under the Companies Act, and it functions essentially as a government department under the Ministry of Industries. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellant holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. The key principle laid down is that an organization created by executive order, rather than by statute or corporate registration, does not possess a separate corporate status, and its employees are considered civil servants entitled to the protection and jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of an organization created by executive resolution, rather than by statute or corporate registration, qualify as a civil servant?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving employees of organizations under the administrative control of a federal ministry?
  • What criteria distinguish a government department from a statutory corporation or a company incorporated under the Companies Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabbani vs Director-General Leather Industry Development1994 PLC (C.S.) 882 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-13Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabbani vs Director General Leather Industry Development1994 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23
  civil servantFederal Service TribunalLeather Industry Development Organizationautonomous bodycivil postjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the ground that he was not a civil servant. The appellant, appointed as an Assistant in the Leather Industry Development Organization (LIDO) and subsequently deputed to the National Housing Authority, sought a selection grade which the Director-General rejected, treating LIDO as an autonomous body. The core legal question was whether an employee of LIDO holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, thereby qualifying as a civil servant under the law, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Supreme Court held that LIDO was created by executive resolution rather than under a statute or incorporation under the Companies Act, functioning effectively as a government department under the administrative control of the Ministry of Industries. Consequently, the appellant holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation and is a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Leather Industry Development Organization is a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes of employees of the Leather Industry Development Organization?
  • Whether an organization created by executive resolution without statutory incorporation or registration under the Companies Act constitutes a corporate body or a government department?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 71) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Pervaiz vs The Chief Conservator of Forests, Southern1994 PLC (C.S.) 1530 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad And 30 Other vs M/s. Sindh Engineering Co. Ltd., Karachi1994 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
• Saeed Afzal vs Mumtaz Hussain and others1994 SCMR 2085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  public auctionminor mineralstemporary injunctionbid negotiationconcession rulescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed an application for a temporary injunction regarding the auction of mineral excavation rights. The petitioner, the highest bidder in an open auction, challenged the authorities' decision to initiate negotiations with other parties to secure a higher bid, arguing that such negotiations were contrary to the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having refused to participate in the negotiation process initiated by the authorities to improve the bid amount, possessed a valid grievance to seek injunctive relief against the confirmation of a higher bid. The Supreme Court held that the authorities were empowered under Rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, to conduct negotiations if the initial bid was deemed inadequate. The Court determined that because the petitioner voluntarily abstained from the negotiation process, he lacked a prima facie case to challenge the proceedings, particularly as his own bid had not yet been confirmed. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bidder who refuses to participate in a negotiation process initiated by authorities to improve bid amounts subsequently challenge the outcome of those negotiations?
  • Does the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, authorize the licensing authority to negotiate for a higher bid if the initial auction bid is considered inadequate?
  • Is a bidder entitled to an interim injunction against the confirmation of a contract when their own bid has not yet been formally confirmed by the authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiya Begum vs Improvement Trust1994 MLD 995 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1994 MLD 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others1994 PLC 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-22
  workmanassistant accountantgrievance petitionburden of proofsupervisory dutiespith and substance of dutiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld the findings of the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner, an Assistant Accountant, was not a workman. The core legal question was whether the petitioner fell within the definition of a workman under the relevant labour laws so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that the onus is on the employee to prove by sufficient evidence that he is a workman, and that the pith and substance of his duties—rather than his designation or salary—must be evaluated. Upon examining the evidence, the Court found that the petitioner performed supervisory functions, such as recommending leave applications, signing overtime sheets, and checking vouchers and pay-rolls. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the forums below that the petitioner was not a workman, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Accountant performing supervisory functions qualifies as a workman under labour laws?
  • Upon whom lies the onus to prove that an employee is a workman within the meaning of labour laws?
  • What criteria must be evaluated when determining whether an employee is a workman?
  • Whether the High Court's finding that an employee is not a workman warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-22
  workmanassistant accountantgrievance petitionsupervisory dutiesburden of prooflabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service dispute where the petitioner, formerly employed as an Assistant Accountant by an industrial company, was dismissed after being found guilty in inquiry proceedings. He challenged his dismissal through a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. After protracted litigation involving remands and conflicting findings by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labour laws to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Supreme Court held that the onus heavily lies on the employee to establish by sufficient evidence that he is a workman, and that the pith and substance of the duties performed—rather than the designation or salary—determine the status. Finding that the petitioner exercised supervisory powers and performed duties of a supervisory nature rather than routine manual or clerical work, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Tribunal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof to establish that an employee falls within the definition of a workman under labour laws?
  • Does the designation or salary of an employee determine whether they qualify as a workman?
  • Whether an Assistant Accountant performing checking, verification, and supervisory functions is considered a workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Enterprises vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16
  customs valuationconstitutional petitionexhaustion of remediesjurisdictional defectimport dutycondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of constitutional petitions filed by importers of chemical products, specifically Alcoprint PTF and DP 3-2680, challenging a customs valuation decision. The core dispute arose when customs authorities amended the valuation manual to delete the separate entry for DP 3-2680, effectively treating it as identical to Alcoprint PTF for duty purposes, despite the petitioners' contention that the products are distinct. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the petitioners failed to exhaust statutory remedies of appeal and revision available under the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that the impugned order, which involved a factual determination regarding the nature of the chemicals, did not suffer from a jurisdictional defect or nullity that would bypass the requirement to exhaust statutory remedies. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions as premature, directing the petitioners to pursue their departmental remedies, while noting that the time spent in the High Court could be considered for condonation of delay by the appellate authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when statutory remedies of appeal and revision under the Customs Act, 1969 have not been exhausted?
  • Does an order based on a disputed finding of fact constitute a jurisdictional defect sufficient to bypass statutory appellate remedies?
  • Can the time spent pursuing a constitutional petition be considered for condonation of delay in subsequent departmental appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabro vs The State And Another1994 PLD Quetta 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Sabir and 3 others vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-18
  dying declarationmurdercriminal appealevidentiary valuecorroborationsentence commutationocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, murder reference, and revision petition arose from the conviction of four appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value and admissibility of a dying declaration, particularly regarding its lack of medical attestation and the absence of an expectation of death. The Court held that a dying declaration is admissible under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, regardless of whether the declarant expected death. It further established that procedural omissions, such as failing to obtain a doctor's attestation, do not invalidate a dying declaration if the court is satisfied that the statement was voluntary and truthful. While the Court upheld the conviction of two appellants based on the dying declaration, it acquitted the other two due to lack of corroborative evidence. Consequently, the death sentences of the convicted appellants were commuted to life imprisonment, and the revision petition for enhancement was partially allowed regarding compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration admissible as evidence if the declarant did not have an expectation of death at the time of making the statement?
  • Does the absence of medical attestation on a dying declaration automatically render it inadmissible or unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without independent corroboration?
  • Does Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the use of a dying declaration as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saba Gul Qureshi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1994 CLC 1073 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• S.S. V. Kumar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1994 PTD 877 · Kerala High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• S.M.S. Investment Corporation (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1994 PTD 1175 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-12-08Read full judgment →
• S.M. Ziaddin vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 667 · Madras High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• S.M. John vs Secretary, Health Division, Islamabad And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 540 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• S.M. Asim, in the Matter of Petition under Section 276 of vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• S.M. Asim, in the Matter of Petition under Section 276 of the Succession Act, 1925 for Probate of the Will of Late MR. S.M. Asim S_0 Late MR. S.M. Qasim vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• S. Masroor Ahsan vs Syed Ali Ashraf Shah, 1ST Additional District and Sessions Judge, West and the Returning Officer, Na 184Karachi West1 and 11 others1994 MLD 470 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• S. Kabir Ali vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 909 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-16Read full judgment →
• S. Jamshed Raza vs Syed Naimul Haq1994 PLC 624 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-24Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Balighuddin vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →