Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Faryad vs Sultan Ahmad, Rent Controller, Lahore and another1994 MLD 293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1994 MLD 1045 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board, N. W.F.P., WAPDA, Peshawar And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1021 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief, Secretary And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1682 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Anjum vs Superintendent of Police and others1994 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-16
  service appealdismissal from servicepolice constableunauthorized absenceshow-cause noticeleave to appealcontradictory pleas
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Police Constable, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal upholding his dismissal from service. The petitioner was proceeded against for unauthorized absence from duty, suspicious movement, and complaints of committing an unnatural offence. A show-cause notice was issued, following which the Superintendent of Police dismissed him, and his departmental appeals and subsequent service tribunal appeal were rejected. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was denied due process through lack of service of notice and whether his dismissal was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner took contradictory stances regarding the service of the notice and failed to substantiate his claims, thereby justifying his dismissal. The court established that contradictory pleas by a litigant regarding service of notice disentitle them to relief, and unauthorized absence coupled with failure to respond to a show-cause notice warrants dismissal from disciplined service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictory stances taken by a petitioner regarding the service of a show-cause notice disentitle him to relief?
  • Does unauthorized absence from duty without prior sanction justify dismissal from police service?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a departmental dismissal when he fails to reply to the show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Education, Islamabad And Anothers1994 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid Khan vs The Presiding Officer, Ivth Sindh Labour1994 PLC 593 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fakhruddin Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 5 Others1994 PLD Supreme Court 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-09
  repatriated employeesenioritypensionary benefitsOrdinance XI of 1983service matterlimitationformer East Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the seniority and pensionary benefits of a repatriated former East Pakistan government employee. The core legal questions were whether the period spent by the appellant waiting for posting after his repatriation to Pakistan constitutes duty for the purpose of seniority and pension, and whether his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the period spent waiting for posting after repatriation must be treated as duty for seniority and pensionary benefits, consistent with the principle established in Federation of Pakistan v. Zaki Ahmad Siddiqui. The Court further ruled that the appeal before the Tribunal was not time-barred, as the departmental authority had decided the representation on its merits, thereby providing a fresh cause of action. The key principle laid down is that the period of involuntary unemployment following repatriation from former East Pakistan for government employees is to be counted as service on duty for seniority and pension purposes under Ordinance XI of 1983.

  Questions settled

  • Does the period spent by a repatriated former East Pakistan government employee waiting for posting constitute duty for seniority and pension purposes?
  • Can a departmental authority's decision on the merits of a representation create a fresh cause of action for the purpose of limitation?
  • Are former East Pakistan government employees entitled to count their period of unemployment after repatriation as service on duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fakhruddin Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 5 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-09
  service tribunalsenioritypensionary benefitsrepatriated employeesEast Pakistan employeeslimitation periodwaiting period for posting
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the fixation of seniority and pensionary benefits for a former government employee of East Pakistan who was repatriated following the events of 1971 and subsequently absorbed into the federal service. The core legal question was whether the period spent by the appellant waiting for posting after repatriation to Pakistan should be treated as a period spent on duty for the purposes of seniority and pension, and whether his departmental appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the period spent waiting for posting must be counted towards seniority and pensionary benefits, following the principle established in prior jurisprudence regarding former East Pakistan employees. The Court further ruled that the service tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred since a fresh cause of action arose upon the subsequent departmental decision. The key principle laid down is that the waiting period following repatriation for former East Pakistan employees is to be treated as duty for service benefits under the relevant statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period spent by a repatriated employee of former East Pakistan while waiting for posting after arrival in Pakistan can be counted towards seniority and pensionary benefits?
  • Whether an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal is maintainable when a fresh cause of action arises from a subsequent departmental decision on merits?
  • How does Ordinance XI of 1983 govern the appointment, seniority, and pension of former employees of the Government of East Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 136) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Shams-Ud-Din And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 58) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Nazir Ahmed and 2 others1994 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-08
  adverse possessionencroachmentHadd Shiknidemarcation of landevacuee propertycivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the alleged encroachment of 3 Marlas 7 Sarsais of land by the appellant upon property purchased by the respondents in a state auction. The core legal question was whether the appellant could successfully claim adverse possession over the encroached land, given that the encroachment was not publicly known or determined until formal demarcation proceedings occurred. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's claim of adverse possession failed because the encroachment was not public, hostile, or known to the respondents until the demarcation report was finalized. The Court established the principle that in cases of marginal encroachment (Hadd Shikni), adverse possession cannot be established until the fact of encroachment is determined through formal demarcation proceedings, as the possession cannot be considered 'public and hostile' in the absence of such determination. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the appellant failed to prove adverse possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a claim of adverse possession be established in cases of marginal encroachment before formal demarcation proceedings have taken place?
  • Does an encroachment of land constitute 'public and hostile' possession if the extent of the encroachment remains undetermined?
  • At what point does a cause of action for adverse possession arise in cases involving marginal land encroachments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Fatima Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 300 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Through Legal Heirs vs Fatima Bibi And 9 Other1994 CLC 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs vs Allah Ditta and others1994 MLD 822 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Etc vs Allah Ditta Etc1994 CLC 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Etc vs Allah Ditta Etc+D68151994 CLC 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din And Another vs Ch. Zaheer Ud Din And 7 Other1994 CLC 568 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and 2 others vs Muhammad Amin and 8 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20
  consolidation schemepower of reviewrevenue lawerror apparent on the face of the recordejusdem generisBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over a consolidation scheme of a revenue estate. The core legal question concerned the scope of the power of review vested in the Member, Board of Revenue under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. Specifically, the Court examined whether the Member, Board of Revenue acted within his jurisdiction when reviewing a previous order. The Supreme Court held that the power of review is limited and distinct from an appellate power. It ruled that review can only be invoked upon the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available, or due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' in the statute must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the preceding grounds. Finding that the Member, Board of Revenue had improperly exercised review powers without identifying any such error or new evidence, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the review order and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the power of review under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
  • Can the power of review be equated with the power of appeal?
  • What constitutes a 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' for the purposes of a review application?
  • How should the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' in Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 be interpreted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din And 2 Other vs Muhammad Amin And 8 Other---PLD 1994 Supreme Court 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din alias Manni and another vs The State1994 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-18
  murderdying declarationmotiveappellate reviewsentence mitigationocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi, while altering the death sentence of the first appellant to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was founded on an initial report alleging a petty motive regarding a refusal to assist in mud plastering, and a subsequent dying declaration alleging a motive involving seeing the accused in an objectionable position. The core legal questions pertained to the reliability of the dying declaration, the sufficiency of the motive, the credibility of ocular and child witness testimony, and the propriety of the sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evidence relating to the immediate motive was unsatisfactory and shrouded in mystery, but upheld the conviction based on reliable ocular and corroborative evidence, and declined to interfere with the commutation of the death sentence. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish a satisfactory immediate motive, but ocular and medical evidence overwhelmingly prove guilt, the conviction may be sustained while the uncertainty of motive may serve as a mitigating circumstance against the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the prosecution's alleged motive remains shrouded in mystery?
  • Can a dying declaration recorded by a police officer be relied upon when corroborated by other evidence?
  • Whether uncertainty or weakness in the proof of motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chuttal and another vs The State1994 MLD 886 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs WAPDA And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18
  service appealdate of birthsuperannuationquestion of factleave to appealservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his retirement from service as an Assistant Lineman in WAPDA. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the determination of the petitioner's correct date of birth and subsequent retirement involved a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the determination of a correct date of birth is a question of fact resolved by the Tribunal upon appraisal of conflicting record entries, and does not warrant the grant of leave under Article 212(3). The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that factual disputes regarding service records do not constitute substantial questions of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of an employee's correct date of birth constitutes a question of fact?
  • Does a dispute regarding an entry of date of birth in service records involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs WAPDA And Others-1994 PLC (C.S.) 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18
  service lawdate of birth disputesuperannuationFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealquestion of factWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge against his retirement from service by WAPDA. The core legal question concerned the determination of the petitioner's correct date of birth, as conflicting records existed: 1945 in the service book, 26-12-1946 in a school leaving certificate, and 1-7-1928 in the WAPDA employee list. The Tribunal had evaluated these documents and concluded that the petitioner's retirement was justified based on the date of birth recorded in the WAPDA list. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the determination of the petitioner's date of birth constituted a pure question of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide. Consequently, the Court found that the petition did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance as required for the grant of leave to appeal under the Constitution. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that factual findings by the Tribunal are generally not subject to interference in this jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the determination of an employee's correct date of birth constitute a question of law or a question of fact?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 where no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs WAPDA and others1994 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18
  service lawsuperannuationdate of birth disputeleave to appealquestion of factFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging his retirement from service by WAPDA. The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Lineman, contested his retirement, arguing he had not reached the age of superannuation based on his service book, which recorded his birth year as 1945. However, the Tribunal observed conflicting evidence regarding the petitioner's date of birth, noting three different dates: 1945 in the service book, 26-12-1946 in a school leaving certificate, and 1-7-1928 in the WAPDA employee list. The Tribunal evaluated these documents and found the service book entry unreliable, ultimately concluding that the retirement was valid based on the date of birth recorded in the WAPDA list. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the petitioner's correct date of birth constituted a question of fact, which was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of an employee's correct date of birth a question of fact to be decided by the Service Tribunal?
  • Does a dispute regarding an employee's date of birth constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs (Sh.) Abdul WahidK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 449 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota And Another vs Sh. Abdul Wahid1994 CLC 1018 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota And An Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-16
  back benefitsservice tribunalreinstatementcivil servantintervening periodarrears of pay
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Subject Specialist, challenged his retirement under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reinstating the appellant but ordering that the intervening period of his absence be treated as leave without pay, thereby denying him back benefits. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in withholding back benefits without assigning reasons or following the prescribed procedure for such determinations. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred by failing to provide reasons for denying back benefits and by failing to adhere to the statutory mechanism for determining such entitlements. The Court emphasized that under F.R. 54 and Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the determination of back benefits involves a specific process, including the constitution of a committee to assess potential earnings during the intervening period. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the respondents to decide the appellant's entitlement to arrears in accordance with the law and relevant service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Service Tribunal required to assign reasons when denying back benefits to a reinstated civil servant?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to bypass the committee mechanism for determining back benefits under F.R. 54?
  • Should the intervening period of a reinstated civil servant be treated as leave without pay without considering the statutory provisions for arrears?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Pakistan Railways Through Divisional1994 PLC 422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Chief Settlement Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Badar Uz Zaman1994 CLC 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Azad1994 PLC (C.S.) 258 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1992-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir And Others vs Muhammad Hussain1994 CLC 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21
  civil revisionsuit for possessionlicenseerecord of rightsadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionallotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for possession filed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioners were licensees of the disputed land (an Ihata) who refused to surrender possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent failed to prove ownership despite finding the petitioners to be illegal occupants. On appeal, the Additional District Judge admitted additional evidence, including an order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dismissing the petitioners' challenge to the respondent's allotment, and reversed the trial court's decision. The High Court, in dismissing the revision petition, held that the record of rights (Exh. P1 and Exh. P2) and rent receipts established the respondent's title. The Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is intended solely for correcting jurisdictional errors. Furthermore, the petitioners' failure to file the essential documentary evidence produced before the lower courts warranted the dismissal of the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for possession can be dismissed on the ground of non-proof of ownership when the record of rights and revenue orders establish the plaintiff's title?
  • Can a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed for failure of the petitioner to file the essential documentary evidence produced before the lower courts?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in correcting errors of subordinate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashi vs Khalid Mehmood and another1994 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-06
  criminal appealmurderself-defenceappreciation of evidenceconflicting versionsmedical evidencecommutation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by the complainant challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment altering the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304 Part I, reducing his sentence to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved evaluating conflicting versions of the incident presented by the prosecution and the accused, particularly concerning the plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in accepting the accused's self-defence version, which was contradicted by medical evidence showing the shot was fired from a close range of 3 to 4 feet and the absence of any injuries on the accused, while the prosecution version was corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment due to unestablished motives and withheld facts. The key legal principle laid down is that a plea of self-defence must be consistent with medical evidence, physical circumstances, and the absence of injuries on the assailant, and cannot be accepted based on bare statements when contradicted by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of self-defence can be sustained when contradicted by medical evidence and the absence of injuries on the accused?
  • How should a court evaluate two conflicting versions of an incident presented by the prosecution and the defence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to fully establish its motive justify altering a conviction or reducing a sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Secretary, Communication and Works1994 PLC (C.S.) 174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Muhammad Jan And 2 Others1994 PLC 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30
  miner booksalt miner servicetransfer of miner bookleave to appealrevision petitioninheritance of miner rights
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Bakhsh petitioned for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his revision petition against the District Judge's decree. The underlying dispute concerned the entitlement to hold the deceased miner book of Fazal Ilahi. The Civil Court initially found in favor of the petitioner, but the District Judge reversed this finding and held the respondent entitled to the miner book pursuant to Rule 4 of the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976. Both the Appellate and Revisional Courts noted that upon the death of the deceased miner, the petitioner was admittedly in government service and thus not properly situated to be transferred the miner book, especially when compared to respondent No.1, who was a nephew of the same degree without competing disqualifications. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found no legal error or infirmity in the impugned judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' interpretation and application of the service and conduct regulations regarding the transfer of miner books upon a miner's death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a miner book can be transferred to a nephew who was in government service at the time of the deceased miner's death?
  • Does the High Court's dismissal of a revision petition warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no legal error is shown?
  • How does Rule 4 of the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976 govern the priority of transferring a deceased miner's book among relatives?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Muhammad Jan and 2 others1994 SCMR 5L5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  miner bookservice regulationinheritance of licensecivil revisionleave to appealSalt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition concerning the entitlement to a deceased miner's 'miner book'. The dispute arose between two nephews of the deceased, Fazal Ilahi, regarding the right to hold the miner book under the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976. The core legal question concerned the proper interpretation of the rules governing the transfer of such books upon a miner's death, specifically when competing claimants are of the same degree of relationship. The Appellate and Revisional Courts had determined that the petitioner was ineligible because he was in Government service at the time the cause of action arose, and that the trial court had incorrectly assumed the respondent possessed another miner book. The Supreme Court found no legal error or infirmity in the lower courts' judgments. Consequently, the Court held that the lower courts correctly applied the regulations, affirming the respondent's entitlement, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of a miner book by a cousin disqualify a nephew from inheriting a deceased miner's book under the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976?
  • Is a person in Government service eligible to hold a miner book under the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976?
  • What is the order of succession for a miner book upon the death of a miner under the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz Khan vs Secretary, Food Department, Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim Khan alias Badi and 2 others vs Azad Khan and 108 others1994 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-27
  Mahazi Malikancontiguous ownersrecord of rightsproprietary rightsestate ownershipland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a concurrent judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the trial and appellate court decrees in favor of the respondents. The dispute concerned the ownership of land in the estate of village Kakki, recorded as belonging to 'Mahazi Malikan' (contiguous owners). The petitioners, who owned land in a different estate (Landidak Qasuria) adjacent to the suit property, claimed ownership rights based on their status as contiguous owners. The core legal question was whether the term 'Mahazi Malikan' in the record of rights could be interpreted to include owners of land situated in a different estate. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation adopted by the lower courts—that 'Mahazi Malikan' refers exclusively to contiguous owners within the same estate—was legally sound and consistent with the purpose of settlement records, which define proprietary rights within specific estates. Finding no jurisdictional error or legal flaw in the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that ownership rights in one estate do not extend to contiguous land located in a separate estate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'Mahazi Malikan' in a record of rights include owners of contiguous land situated in a different estate?
  • Are settlement officers concerned with proprietary rights of persons having no rights in the specific estate being recorded?
  • Can an owner of land in one estate claim ownership of adjacent land in a different estate based solely on contiguity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim and others vs Ali Mohtashim and others1994 SCMR 555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-09
  Jammu and Kashmir refugeesRehabilitation Resettlement Schememaintenance allotmentMartial Law Regulation 89Martial Law Regulation 91cancellation of allotmentnatural justiceSettlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court concerning conflicting land allotments. The appellants, refugees from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, were allotted land for maintenance purposes in 1947/48. In 1959, the Settlement authorities allotted the same land to Respondent No. 1 without notice to the appellants and without cancelling their prior allotment. The High Court dismissed the appellants' constitutional petition holding that the subsequent allotment had attained finality in the absence of a timely appeal or revision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment and the orders of the Settlement authorities. The Court held that under paragraph 4-A(ix), Part I of the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme, land allotted on a temporary basis to Jammu and Kashmir refugees was expressly excluded from the Scheme, rendering any subsequent allotment illegal. Furthermore, an allotment made without notice to the prior occupant cannot attain finality.

  Questions settled

  • Can land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance be validly allotted to another claimant under the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme?
  • Whether an allotment of land made in favor of a subsequent claimant without notice to or cancellation of the prior allottee's allotment is legally valid?
  • Do Martial Law Regulations No. 89 and 91 validate an allotment of land that was void ab initio under the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme?
  • Does an illegal allotment order attain finality against an aggrieved prior allottee who was not given notice of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Gujranwala and others1994 MLD 211 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1994 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15
  leave to appealarms ordinancerecovery witnessescontradictions in evidencesuspension of sentencebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, resulting in a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding alleged misreading of evidence, contradictions between police recovery witnesses, non-association of public witnesses, and unconsidered defence documents and enmity with police officials. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the evidence in light of these contentions, suspended the sentence, and admitted the petitioner to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when recovery witnesses are exclusively police officials and contradict each other on material particulars?
  • Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance be sustained when defence evidence and documents regarding police enmity are allegedly ignored?
  • Whether the sentence can be suspended and bail granted upon the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and 16 others1994 SCMR 2043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08
  pre-emptionnature of transactionsale vs exchangequestion of factsecond appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the nature of a land transfer transaction involving Sahib Dad and the contesting respondents. The core legal question was whether the transaction constituted a sale or an exchange, a determination critical to the petitioner's claim for the right of pre-emption. The trial court initially characterized the transaction as an exchange, thereby denying the pre-emption claim. The first appellate court subsequently reversed this finding, classifying the transaction as a sale and decreeing the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the High Court in second appeal overturned the appellate court's decision, restoring the trial court's original finding that the transaction was an exchange. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the classification of the transaction as either a sale or an exchange is a question of fact. Finding that the High Court provided substantial and sufficient reasoning for preferring the trial court's conclusion over that of the first appellate court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that there was no merit in the challenge to the High Court's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of whether a land transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange considered a question of fact?
  • Can a High Court in second appeal prefer the findings of a trial court over those of a first appellate court if the reasoning is substantial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Fazalehaq Raja and others1994 MLD 1875 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Mirza vs Chairman, Pak-Telecommunication1994 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad vs Chairman Municipal Committee, Mirpur And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 122 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Through Chairman And 2 Others1994 PLC 784 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Muhammad Gul Zareen(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 31) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Awan vs Muhammad Yaqub and 13 others1994 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-19
  criminal complaintwithdrawal of complaintdismissal of complaintrevival of complaintleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal complaint. The petitioner filed a direct complaint for theft, which remained pending for six years. Subsequently, the petitioner voluntarily filed an application before the Magistrate stating he no longer wished to prosecute the complaint, leading the Magistrate to dismiss the case. The petitioner later sought to revive the complaint, but the Magistrate rejected the application, citing a lack of power to revive a complaint dismissed at the complainant's own request. The High Court upheld this decision, noting the withdrawal was a voluntary act. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is compelled to continue proceedings despite a complainant's express withdrawal of the complaint. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate acted correctly in dismissing the complaint upon the petitioner's voluntary request. The Court affirmed that where a complainant consciously withdraws a complaint, the trial court has no alternative but to dismiss it. The petition was dismissed for lack of substance, as no illegality was committed by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to revive a criminal complaint that was previously dismissed at the specific request of the complainant?
  • Is a Magistrate required to proceed with a criminal case even when the complainant explicitly states they do not wish to prosecute it?
  • Does the voluntary withdrawal of a criminal complaint by a complainant constitute a valid ground for the dismissal of the proceedings by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, District II (v), Kanpur1994 PTD 132 · Allahabad High Court · 1961-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1994 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-07
  surety bond forfeitureproclaimed absconderbail bondmitigating circumstancesleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Shariat Court, which had dismissed his revision petition regarding the forfeiture of a surety bond. The petitioner and another individual had stood surety for an accused, Taoos Khan, facing trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. Following the accused's absence and subsequent declaration as a proclaimed absconder, the Sessions Judge forfeited the surety bonds. The petitioner contended that the accused had died shortly after his initial absence and that the accused's prior absence was due to illness, arguing that the forfeiture of the entire bond amount was excessive in these circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the forfeiture of the entire surety bond amount was justified given the evidence of the accused's death and the mitigating circumstances surrounding his absence. Finding that the question of whether the full bond amount should have been forfeited required further examination, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically on this issue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entire amount of a surety bond should be forfeited when the accused dies shortly after becoming absent from court?
  • Does the death of an accused person constitute a valid ground for mitigating the forfeiture of a surety bond?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs S.H.O. Police Station Noorpur, Tehsil NoorpurK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Municipal Committee Sargodha And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 86) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Municipal Committee And Other1994 CLC 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Sharif1994 CLC 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Anwer Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Anwar and others1994 MLD 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Arbila Noreen And Other1994 CLC 2099 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Managing Director Punjab Small IndustriesK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 131 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore1994 MLD 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23
  land acquisitionlimitation periodreference to civil courtnotice of awardcompensation disputestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment dismissing a Constitutional petition that sought to compel a reference to the Civil Court regarding land acquisition compensation. The appellant contended that because he was not served with notice of the award, the limitation period for filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should run from the date of his knowledge of the award rather than the date of the award itself. The core legal question was whether the statutory limitation period is triggered by the date of knowledge in the absence of notice. The Court held that the limitation period is strictly governed by the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It determined that where no notice under Section 12(2) is served, the maximum period for filing an objection is six months from the date of the Collector's award. The Court affirmed that the date of knowledge is irrelevant to this statutory limitation, dismissing the appeal and upholding the Collector's refusal to refer the time-barred application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, run from the date of knowledge of the award if no notice under Section 12(2) was served?
  • What is the maximum period of limitation for seeking a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when no notice of the award has been served?
  • Is the date of knowledge of an award relevant for computing the limitation period under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Haji Muhammad Boota And 2 Other1994 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs (Mst.) Zariana Bibi(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases I00) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Government of Pakistan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 461 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication1994 PLC (C.S.) 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24
  leave to appealpromotionservice tribunalseniority-cum-fitnesseligibilitydepartmental promotion committeemisreading of record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-7-1993, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking promotion as Assistant Engineer (BPS-16) from June 1985 instead of May 1991. The core legal question is whether the petitioner was wrongly denied consideration for regular promotion against the designated quota despite possessing the requisite qualifications and eligibility from June 1985. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that there was a prima facie misreading of the record by the Tribunal regarding whether the petitioner was considered and found unfit by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its 1988 meeting, or whether he was merely deemed ineligible. The key principle laid down is that an eligible civil servant possessing the requisite qualifications for promotion against a reserved quota is entitled to lawful consideration by the competent promotion forum, and misreading of departmental records by a service tribunal warrants interference by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether eligibility for promotion is synonymous with consideration for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Does a service tribunal's misreading of the departmental record regarding a petitioner's consideration for promotion warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Is a civil servant possessing the requisite qualifications entitled to consideration for promotion against a reserved quota from the date of acquiring eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Bajwa vs Province of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 455 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs District Collector, Lahore1994 MLD 1981 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 418 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Deputy Commissioner/District1994 CLC 924 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And 3 Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property Azad1994 CLC 2030 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs Muhammad Ramzan1994 MLD 581 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Askar Khan vs Agha Ejaz Hussain1994 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and another1994 MLD 960 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 330 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Faqir Muhammad and another1994 MLD 601 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Dr. Muhammad Zaman And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17
  service tribunallocus poenitentiaenatural justiceadvance incrementsupgradation of postmove-overcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves four consolidated appeals arising from a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, concerning service disputes over promotions, upgradation of posts, advance increments, and move-overs between Dr. Muhammad Zaman and Dr. Muhammad Ashraf. The core legal questions revolved around the applicability of the rule of locus poenitentiae and the legality of retrospectively upgrading posts and appointments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that adverse orders withdrawing benefits and promotions previously granted to Dr. Muhammad Zaman without affording him an opportunity of hearing were violative of the principles of natural justice and thus unsustainable. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings setting aside the withdrawal of advance increments and the down-gradation of the post, while maintaining the dismissal of appeals concerning time-barred challenges. The key principle laid down is that administrative orders detrimental to a civil servant's vested rights cannot be passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, and the competent authorities retain the liberty to re-examine inter se seniority in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of locus poenitentiae is applicable to the case in the facts and circumstances of the matter?
  • Whether upgradation of a post with retrospective effect and similarly upgradation of an employee retrospectively could be made?
  • Can adverse administrative orders withdrawing benefits or promotions be sustained when passed without providing a hearing to the affected civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Dr. Muhammad Zaman and others1994 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17
  civil servicenatural justiceaudi alteram partemupgradationadvance incrementssenioritylocus poenitentiaelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses four appeals arising from a Federal Service Tribunal decision concerning the service conditions, upgradation, and advance increments of two medical officers. The respondent, Dr. Muhammad Zaman, had his post upgraded to BPS-19 and was granted advance increments, which were later cancelled by the department without a prior hearing. Concurrently, the appellant, Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, had his contract appointment regularized retrospectively. The Tribunal restored the respondent's increments and upgradation but dismissed his appeal against the appellant's retrospective regularization as time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the cancellation of the respondent's increments and upgradation without a hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that while the adverse orders were rightly set aside on this ground, the official respondents remained free to re-examine the inter se seniority of the parties in accordance with the law after providing a proper hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative order granting increments or upgradation to a civil servant be withdrawn without providing an opportunity of being heard?
  • Does the violation of the principle of natural justice render an administrative order of demotion or withdrawal of benefits unsustainable?
  • Can the question of inter se seniority be re-examined by department authorities if the original adverse orders are set aside due to procedural violations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs The State and another1994 SCMR 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-12
  private complaintinquiry officeradmissibility of evidenceinvestigating officer opinionsummoning of accusedcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a criminal matter where the appellants, previously discharged by a Magistrate following a police investigation, were subsequently summoned by an Additional Sessions Judge based on a private complaint. The core legal question was whether the Inquiry Officer acted improperly by failing to examine the police officers who had initially investigated the case and found the appellants innocent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the investigating officers' testimony regarding the opinions they formed during their investigation would have been inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer did not err in refusing to examine them. The judgment establishes the principle that the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence or guilt of an accused is not admissible evidence in judicial proceedings, and therefore, an inquiry officer is not required to examine such officers when evaluating a private complaint for the purpose of summoning accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused admissible as evidence in court?
  • Is an inquiry officer under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 required to examine police officers who previously investigated the case when deciding whether to summon accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 14 others vs Ziarat Gul1994 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And 14 Other vs Ziarat Gul1994 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Chaudhry vs The State1994 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-16
  narcotics possessionsentence reductionmitigating circumstancesrigorous imprisonmentProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of heroin. The appellant, Muhammad Ashraf, was initially convicted by the trial court under both Article 3 and Article 4 of the Order. The Federal Shariat Court subsequently set aside the conviction under Article 3 but maintained the conviction and sentence under Article 4. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing his advanced age (approximately 60 years) and his status as the sole breadwinner for a large family. The Supreme Court, finding the plea for mitigation genuine, exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence. The Court held that while the conviction for the possession of narcotics was maintained, the sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and fifteen stripes was excessive given the appellant's personal circumstances. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment and five stripes, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 2,000.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment and stripes based on the advanced age and family responsibilities of the convict?
  • Does the absence of a formal age record in the paper book preclude the Court from considering the age of the accused for sentencing purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu and others vs The State1994 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-19
  harabadacoityrobberyhudood ordinanceamputationocular evidencerecovery of robbed propertyprompt FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials convicting the appellants under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 337-F(vi)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing haraba and causing injuries. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular evidence, the corroborative value of prompt FIR lodging and recoveries, and the application of punishments for haraba under the Hudood Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that consistent and disinterested ocular testimony, supported by timely medical examination, prompt reporting, and recovery of robbed items, conclusively established the guilt of the appellants. The court affirmed the convictions and the sentence of amputation as mandated by section 17(3) of the Ordinance, laying down that reliable eyewitness accounts corroborated by material recoveries and medical evidence form a sufficient and unassailable basis for conviction in violent robbery cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of injured and independent witnesses, when consistent and prompt, is sufficient to maintain a conviction for haraba?
  • Can a statement made to an investigating officer be used to contradict a witness in view of the prohibition contained in section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the punishment of amputation under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is properly attracted and confirmable upon proof of violent robbery?
  • Does the prompt lodging of an FIR without unexplained delay rule out deliberation and false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque vs A.C.1994 MLD 181 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq And 3 Others vs Karam Ali Tar Muhammad1994 CLC 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashad Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 69) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Etc vs Muhammad Akram Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-12
  acquittalcriminal revisiondouble presumption of innocenceretrialappraisal of evidencemiscarriage of justicefalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court order that set aside an acquittal judgment and directed a retrial for the appellants. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, was justified in interfering with a trial court's acquittal order based on the principles governing such interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the acquittal. The ratio of the decision is that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence—the general presumption of innocence and the presumption arising from a competent court's finding of not guilty. Interference with an acquittal is only permissible if the judgment is manifestly wrong, perverse, based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice. A mere difference of opinion between the appellate/revisional court and the trial court regarding evidence appraisal does not justify interference. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that police opinions on guilt cannot substitute for judicial evidence, and the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies when eyewitness accounts are disbelieved regarding co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of a High Court's power to interfere with an acquittal order in criminal revision proceedings?
  • Does a difference of opinion between the trial court and the revisional court regarding evidence appraisal justify setting aside an acquittal?
  • Can the opinion of the police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused form the sole basis for a conviction?
  • Does the principle of double presumption of innocence apply to an accused person who has been acquitted by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar And Another vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-12
  acquittalcriminal revisionretrialdouble presumption of innocencerevisional jurisdictionappraisal of evidencemiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an acquittal order passed by a Sessions Judge and directed a retrial of the appellants. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, was justified in interfering with an acquittal order without finding it perverse or based on misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interference. The Court reaffirmed that an accused person who has secured an acquittal enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Interference with such an order is permissible only if the judgment is manifestly wrong, perverse, ignores material evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice. A mere difference of opinion regarding the appraisal of evidence between the trial court and the revisional court does not justify setting aside an acquittal. Furthermore, police opinion cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction, and evidence disbelieved regarding some accused cannot be selectively applied to others. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a revisional court set aside an order of acquittal?
  • Does a mere difference of opinion regarding the appraisal of evidence justify a revisional court in setting aside an acquittal?
  • Can police opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused form the sole basis for a conviction?
  • Is the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable to an accused who has been acquitted by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asadullah Khan vs Chairman, Department of Computer1994 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1994 MLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Syed Asim Saqlain and another1994 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-10
  transfer of criminal caseinterlocutory orderjudicial impartialityspeedy trialstay of proceedingsSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Article 186-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the transfer of two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions from the Peshawar High Court to a High Court outside the Province of N.-W.F.P. The underlying dispute involved the transfer of a murder trial involving the petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, which had been moved between various courts by the Federal Government due to concerns regarding judicial impartiality, specifically involving the relationship between a victim's brother and a sitting judge. The Peshawar High Court had issued an interim order staying proceedings in the Court of Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, while admitting the challenge to the Federal Government's transfer order for regular hearing. The Supreme Court observed that the order challenged before it was merely an interlocutory order passed by the High Court. The Court held that since the petitioner could raise all arguments against the interim order before the High Court itself, no special grounds existed to warrant interference with the High Court's interlocutory order at this stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of a High Court when the arguments can be raised before the High Court itself?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to transfer a criminal case between High Courts under Article 186-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Education, Lahore And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Saeed, DIG Police vs Government of Pakistan1994 PLC (C.S.) 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-13
  service appeallimitation periodlocus standifinality of adjudicationinduction policyseniorityvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  These three consolidated appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the Service Tribunal's dismissal of service appeals regarding seniority and induction policies. The core legal questions concerned the strict application of limitation periods in service matters, the locus standi of a civil servant to challenge induction policies implemented before their entry into a specific grade, and the principle of finality of adjudication regarding previously decided service disputes. The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, holding that strict adherence to limitation periods is mandatory in service matters, and the plea that an order is void ab initio does not bypass such limitations. The Court clarified that while policy decisions affecting service conditions are generally amenable to the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction, a civil servant lacks standing to challenge policies implemented before they entered the relevant grade. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle of finality, ruling that previously adjudicated matters cannot be re-agitated based on government admissions made in unrelated litigation concerning different occupational groups.

  Questions settled

  • Does the plea that an order is void ab initio exempt a civil servant from the limitation period prescribed for filing a service appeal?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an induction policy implemented before they entered the relevant grade?
  • Does a policy decision affecting terms and conditions of service qualify as a departmental order amenable to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a previously adjudicated service matter be re-agitated based on government admissions made in litigation concerning a different occupational group?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Saeed, DIG Police vs Government of Pakistan1994 SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-13
  service appeallimitation periodlocus standifinality of adjudicationservice tribunal jurisdictionseniority disputeinduction policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved three consolidated appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging decisions of the Service Tribunal regarding service grievances, seniority, and induction policies. The core legal questions concerned whether service appeals could be maintained despite significant delays, whether policy decisions affecting service terms were appealable under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, and whether previously adjudicated service matters could be reopened based on subsequent disclosures. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeals. It affirmed that strict adherence to limitation periods is mandatory in service matters, and that claims of 'void' orders do not automatically bypass statutory limitation bars without satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while policy decisions affecting terms and conditions of service are generally appealable, a civil servant lacks locus standi to challenge induction policies that were in force before they entered the relevant grade. Finally, the Court upheld the principle of finality of adjudication, ruling that previously decided service disputes cannot be reopened absent compelling new evidence directly applicable to the specific case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant challenge an induction policy for a grade they had not yet entered when the policy was implemented?
  • Does the claim that an impugned order is void ab initio automatically exempt a service appeal from the statutory period of limitation?
  • Can a service appeal be maintained against a policy decision if the appellant has not exhausted departmental remedies or if the appeal is filed after the limitation period?
  • Does an admission by the government regarding a policy in one occupational group justify the reopening of a previously adjudicated service matter in a different occupational group?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Chishti vs Director-General, Military Lands and Cantonments, Rawalpindi And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 160 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →