Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Schlumberger Seaco Inc., Islamabad vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 85 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting 57 applications for tax exemption regarding foreign technicians employed by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as an "approved undertaking" under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the associated Central Board of Revenue circulars. The Court held that the petitioner, having been historically treated as an "approved undertaking" based on the 1977 Circular, was protected by clause (d) of the 1986 Circular from new restrictive conditions regarding actual drilling operations. Consequently, the Court declared the rejection orders without lawful authority. Furthermore, applying the principle that orders built upon a void foundation are themselves void, the Court ruled that the subsequent re-assessment orders for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88 were also of no legal effect. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities cannot impose unstated mandatory requirements for tax exemptions and that "approved undertaking" status, once established, cannot be arbitrarily revoked by subsequent departmental clarifications if those clarifications contain savings clauses for existing entities.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce a certificate from foreign revenue authorities justify the rejection of an application for tax exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does an entity previously treated as an 'approved undertaking' under the 1977 Circular lose that status due to the 1986 Circular's restrictive definitions?
- Are re-assessment orders based on an underlying order that is declared void also rendered void and of no legal effect?
- Can a Commissioner of Income Tax consider new grounds for rejection on remand if the previous remand order did not explicitly restrict the scope of the fresh hearing?
- Saz Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom 50 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
- Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Indsutries Ltd. vs Income-Tax1993 PTD 392 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed writ petitions contending that when regular assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, become time-barred or are annulled, the Department must refund the entire tax collected through advance tax, tax deducted at source, or self-assessment. They argued that in the absence of a regular assessment, the tax charge fails, and retention of such funds violates Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the liability to pay income tax arises under the charging section of the Act and is not contingent upon the completion of a regular assessment. The Court clarified that the assessment process is merely a mechanism to verify the correctness of the income computation. Consequently, the Department is not required to refund the entire tax collected; only the amount paid in excess of what is properly chargeable under the Act is refundable. The Court emphasized that tax collected via self-assessment or advance payment remains a valid and legal recovery, and the failure to conduct a regular assessment does not render the prior collection of tax unauthorized.
Questions settled- Does the failure to complete a regular assessment within the statutory time limit entitle an assessee to a refund of the entire tax paid?
- Is the liability to pay income tax dependent upon the completion of a regular assessment by the Income-tax Officer?
- Can tax collected via advance payment or self-assessment be considered unauthorized if no regular assessment is subsequently made?
- Does the retention of tax paid on the basis of a return, where no regular assessment is made, violate Article 265 of the Constitution of India?
- Sarwar Hussain and others vs The State1993 MLD 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Etc. vs Muhammad Saeed-Ud-Din KhanK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Sartaj Restaurant vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 1911 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Sarla Devi Singhania vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 1090 · Delhi High Court · 1992-07-24Read full judgment →
- Sarja vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 156 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged rape of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the evidence presented. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the prosecution’s case relied primarily on the solitary testimony of the complainant, which lacked corroboration regarding the actual commission of the offence. The Court noted a significant 54-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report, despite the complainant’s husband having returned home, and found no reasonable excuse for such delay. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the possibility of enmity between the parties. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
Questions settled- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused in a Zina case?
- Can a conviction for Zina be sustained solely on the testimony of the complainant when there is no other ocular evidence of the offence?
- Is the existence of prior enmity between the complainant and the accused a relevant factor in evaluating the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
- Sarfraz Ahmad Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-02Read full judgment →
- Sardar Talib Hussain Nakai vs Returning Officer and another1993 MLD 2485 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-07Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad and 2 others vs Haider Zaman and 3 others1993 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment reversing the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title, possession, and perpetual injunction regarding a vacant site. The core legal questions concerned the competency of the revision due to the non-impleadment of pro forma defendants, the burden of proof regarding title when defendants fail to establish their own source of ownership, and the applicability of the law of limitation. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the non-impleadment of pro forma defendants does not render a revision incompetent unless it prejudices the parties' rights. The Court affirmed that while the burden of proof initially rests on the plaintiff, a defendant's failure to assert or substantiate the origin of their own title strengthens the plaintiff's case. Furthermore, the Court established that for vacant land, possession follows title. Finally, the Court held that the suit was within the limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose upon the defendants' recent interference with the property.
Questions settled- Does the non-impleadment of pro forma defendants render a civil revision petition incompetent?
- Does the presumption of possession follow title in cases involving vacant land?
- Does a defendant's failure to establish the origin of their own title affect the court's assessment of the plaintiff's claim?
- Is a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding a vacant site barred by limitation if filed within six years of the cause of action?
- Sardar Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 969 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan and 5 others vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Sardar Imam Bakhsh and 3 others vs Mir Yar Muhammad Khan Rind and another1993 CLC 1556 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
- Sardar alias Sardaro vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2289 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
- Sarbuland vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
- Sana Ullah and others vs The State1993 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trial, Lahore, which convicted the appellants, Sana Ullah and Muhammad Hanif, under Section 411/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the possession of a stolen vehicle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of both appellants regarding the recovery of the stolen car. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Sana Ullah, finding the evidence of the complainant and the investigating officer credible regarding the recovery of the stolen vehicle from his possession. However, the Court acquitted Muhammad Hanif, holding that mere presence as a passenger in the stolen vehicle, without evidence of possession or control, was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 411. The key principle laid down is that possession for the purposes of Section 411 requires more than mere proximity or presence; the prosecution must prove conscious possession or control over the stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an individual in a stolen vehicle constitute possession under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the testimony of a complainant and an investigating officer sufficient to establish the recovery of stolen property?
- When should an accused be granted the benefit of doubt in a case involving the recovery of stolen property?
- Sana Ullah and another vs Muhammad Manzoor and another1993 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
- Samiuddin Rehmani alias Tinno vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1668 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Sameer Ehsan Ullah Makhzan And Other vs Muhammad Asif Zaman Etc.K.L.R. 1993 CivH Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
- Sameer Ehsan Ullah Makhzan and 3 others vs Muhammad Asif Zaman1993 PLD Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking the transfer of six pending civil suits from the court of a civil judge in Lahore. The petitioners contended that they apprehended not receiving a fair trial because the trial judge dismissed their stay applications, proceeded with the cases hastily by fixing short dates in compliance with a High Court directive, failed to consolidate all suits, and because the respondents allegedly boasted of having influential family members in government service. The Lahore High Court held that adverse judicial orders, expeditious trial proceedings in accordance with higher court directions, and baseless apprehensions or conjectures regarding a judge's vulnerability to influence do not constitute valid grounds for transferring a case. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must be protected from frivolous allegations and unnecessary harassment, and that a judge's expression of no objection to a transfer cannot justify moving a case absent a legitimate legal basis. Consequently, the transfer application was dismissed as frivolous with special costs imposed on the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether the passing of successive adverse judicial orders by a trial court constitutes a sufficient ground for the transfer of a suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a case be transferred from a trial court merely because the presiding officer has stated that they have no objection to the transfer?
- Does the expeditious disposal of cases by a trial court in compliance with a High Court directive provide a valid ground for transferring the matter to another court?
- Are vague and conjectural allegations that a litigant has influential relatives who might approach the presiding judge sufficient to warrant the transfer of a suit?
- Samand Khan vs Settlement Commissioner and others1993 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Salman Taseer vs Judge, Special Court1993 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition filed by Salman Taseer challenging proceedings before a Special Court. The core legal questions raised concern whether cognizance of an offense under Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code could be taken without a lawful complaint authorized directly by the Provincial Government, the constitutional validity of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the delegation of powers to file such complaints under Articles 138 and 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, whether a notification empowering officers must be specific rather than general, and the effect of police taking cognizance and investigating prior to the receipt of official sanction. The Court issued notice to the State to consider converting the petition into an appeal and ordered the suspension of trial court proceedings pending final disposal.
Questions settled- Can cognizance of an offense under Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code be taken without a complaint instituted by the Provincial Government?
- Whether Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the empowerment of officers to make complaints?
- Must a notification by the Provincial Government authorizing the filing of a complaint be specific rather than general in nature?
- What is the legal effect on proceedings where the police investigate and file a challan before sanction is received and conveyed to the court?
- Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), KarachiPTCL 1993 CL. 295 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Collector of Customs1993 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, a textile mill, challenged the imposition of Regulatory Duty on imported Viscose Staple Fibre. They argued that a prior exemption granted by the Federal Government under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding customs duties should also cover the subsequently imposed Regulatory Duty. The core legal question was whether an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, applies to a Regulatory Duty imposed by a later notification under Section 18(2) of the same Act. The Court held that the petition was without merit. It reasoned that the power to grant exemptions under Section 19(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, applies only to customs duties 'chargeable' at the relevant time. Consequently, an exemption notification cannot prospectively cover duties levied by subsequent notifications. The Court established the principle that an exemption notification issued under the Customs Act, 1969, does not automatically extend to regulatory duties imposed by the government after the date of the exemption notification.
Questions settled- Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to regulatory duties imposed by a subsequent notification?
- Can an exemption from customs duties granted by the Federal Government extend to duties not yet chargeable at the time of the notification?
- Is a regulatory duty imposed under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, subject to prior exemption notifications issued under Section 19 of the same Act?
- Salem Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1645 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Salehon vs Yaqub and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2380 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
- Saleem vs Abdur Rashid and others1993 P Cr. L J 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmed and anothers vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
- Saleem & Co. vs Income-Tax Authorities ,1993 PTD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
- Sakina Bai vs MRs, Amna Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others1993 CLC 1740 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Sakhawat Hussain and another vs Syed Khadim Hussain and 3 others1993 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2415 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station, Kunjah and another1993 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) as a counter-version to an existing case. The petitioner alleged that his injuries were suppressed in the initial F.I.R. and that the police failed to register his version of events. The respondent S.H.O. submitted that the petitioner’s version had already been investigated, found to be false and unsubstantiated by local witnesses, and that a challan had already been submitted to the court. The core legal question was whether the police are mandatorily required to register a second F.I.R. for a counter-version when the initial investigation has already addressed and rejected that version. The Court held that where the police have already investigated the counter-version and concluded it to be false, directing the registration of a second F.I.R. would be an exercise in futility. The Court affirmed that the petitioner possesses an alternative, more efficacious remedy by filing a private complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the police mandatorily required to register a second F.I.R. for a counter-version if the initial investigation has already found that version to be false?
- Can a High Court issue a direction to register an F.I.R. when the police have already investigated the matter and submitted a challan to the court?
- Is a private complaint a more efficacious remedy than a writ petition for the registration of an F.I.R. when the police have already rejected the petitioner's version?
- Sajjad Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station Kunjah, District Gujrat And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad vs Muhammad YounusK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 212 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad vs Muhammad Younus and another1993 CLC 224 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993'P Cr. L J 1686 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 282 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Sajida Mussarrat vs Muhammad Shafi and 2 others1993 CLC 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from the dismissal of a suit filed by the daughter of a deceased landowner, who challenged an inheritance mutation on the grounds that the deceased followed the Shiite faith, thereby excluding his brothers from inheritance. The trial court dismissed the suit after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments and ultimately failed to appear on the final date of hearing. The appellate court upheld this decision, applying Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order XVII, Rule 3 to close the plaintiff's evidence and dismiss the suit when the plaintiff defaulted on both producing evidence and appearing in court. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that Order XVII, Rule 3 applies even in cases of 'double default'—where a party fails to perform the act for which time was granted and also fails to appear at the adjourned hearing.
Questions settled- Does Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when a party fails to produce evidence and also fails to appear at the adjourned hearing?
- Can a trial court dismiss a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after granting multiple adjournments to a plaintiff for the production of evidence?
- Is the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restricted to cases where the defaulting party is present in court?
- Sajid Asghar Cheema vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 977 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
- Sajawal Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 541 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
- Sain Muhammad Tufail vs Anjuman-E-Darbar-E-Hussain1993 MLD 316 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
- Sain Muhammad and 4 others vs Muhammad Younis1993 CLC 723 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Sain Maqbool Hussain and another vs Muhammad Suleman and 101993 MLD 1603 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- Sain Bux vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2298 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Saima Rashid vs Imran Riaz Imami and another1993 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Chairman, Union Council, to initiate divorce proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, where the husbands are U.S. citizens. The core legal question was whether a non-Pakistani Muslim citizen could invoke Section 7 of the Ordinance. The petitioners contended that Section 1(2) of the Ordinance restricts its application to Muslim citizens of Pakistan. The High Court held that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, including Section 7, applies exclusively to Muslim citizens of Pakistan. The court clarified that the registration of a marriage under Section 5 of the Ordinance in Pakistan does not extend the applicability of Section 7 to non-Pakistani citizens. Consequently, the proceedings before the Chairman, Arbitration Council, were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the respondent husbands were not Muslim citizens of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Can a non-Pakistani Muslim citizen invoke Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Does the registration of a marriage under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, in Pakistan confer jurisdiction under Section 7 if one spouse is a foreign national?
- Is the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, applicable to all Muslims residing in Pakistan, irrespective of their nationality?
- What is the effect of acquiring U.S. nationality on Pakistani citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1951?
- Saifullah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
- Saiful Malook vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 337 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Saiful Malook vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Saif Ali vs Rashid Ahmad Shah alias Sheeday Shah and 3 others1993 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular evidence due to discrepancies regarding firing distance, medical findings, and witness credibility. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s assessment was legally sound and supported by the record. The Court observed that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable, as they were chance witnesses with significant contradictions between their testimonies and the medical evidence, particularly regarding the nature of the injuries and the timing of the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence regarding the respondents' abscondence to be unsatisfactory. Reaffirming the principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless the appellate court's findings are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision to acquit the respondents.
Questions settled- Can ocular evidence be rejected if it contradicts medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries and firing distance?
- Is the evidence of abscondence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- Saidan Gul Shah vs Sardar Mumtaz Ali Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 8 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-28Read full judgment →
- Said Nabi and 3 others vs Shad Muhammad and others1993 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of land alienation under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115) and the subsequent allotment of resumed land to tenants. The core legal question was whether the Land Commission authorities possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a land transfer and whether a transaction deemed fraudulent could be protected under the Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the Land Commission possessed the requisite authority to determine the validity of the alienation, a position previously affirmed by a final Civil Court decision. The Court found that the transaction was fraudulent and thus non-existent in law, rendering the protection provisions of paragraph 7(3) of the Regulation inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court improperly exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by disturbing findings of fraud that remained unchallenged. The principle established is that land reforms authorities have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of alienations, and fraudulent transactions cannot be shielded by the protective provisions of land reform laws.
Questions settled- Are Land Commission authorities competent to adjudicate the validity of land alienations under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Can a transaction declared fraudulent by the Land Commission be protected under paragraph 7(3) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to disturb unchallenged findings of fraud?
- Said Muhammad Shah vs Ghulam Hussain1993 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment which had set aside the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff in a pre-emption suit on the ground of partial pre-emption. The Lahore High Court examined the record and focused on the core legal question of whether the pre-emptor had performed the mandatory statutory demands (Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad) with due alacrity, promptness, and despatch under the applicable pre-emption laws. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the timely and proper performance of the requisite Talbs, and that unexplained delays in making the demands extinguish the right of pre-emption, which is inherently a feeble right requiring strict observance of formalities. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed on the ground that the pre-emption claim failed due to non-fulfillment of the mandatory prerequisites.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to perform Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad with due promptness and despatch extinguishes the right of pre-emption?
- Does the rule of partial pre-emption apply when the superior right claimed extends only to a portion of the sold land?
- Are the formalities and pre-requisite demands for enforcing a right of pre-emption required to be strictly observed?
- Said Muhammad and anothers vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1993 CLC 1589 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
- Said Mohammad Shah vs Ghulam HussainK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
- Said Amin and 8 others vs Wilayat Shah and 15 others1993 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-16Read full judgment →
- Said Ameer Khan vs Mst. Shahzadi Khatoon and others1993 SCMR 2050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed a pre-emption suit which was initially dismissed by the trial court on 5-9-1982. The Appellate Court remanded the case, and the trial court subsequently decreed the suit on 17-11-1987. The High Court, however, set aside this decree, ruling that under the principle established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah, no decree could be passed in favour of a pre-emptor if a decree had not been obtained prior to 31-7-1986. The appellant challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the law allowed for the continuation of suits where a decree was pending. The Supreme Court examined the precedent in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali, which clarified that only cases where a decree in favour of the pre-emptor was passed before 31-7-1986 were saved. The Court further affirmed that the interpretation of 'judgments and decrees' in subsequent legislation, such as the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1990, must be consistent with this principle, requiring a pre-existing decree in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as no decree existed prior to the cutoff date.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit proceed if no decree was passed in favour of the pre-emptor prior to 31-7-1986?
- Do the words 'judgments and decrees' in section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1990 encompass judgments passed against the plaintiff pre-emptor?
- Does the rule established in the Said Kamal Shah case regarding the 31-7-1986 cutoff date apply to suits where no decree in favour of the pre-emptor existed on that date?
- Sahibzada Mansoor Ahmad vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and others1993 MLD 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by descendants of the late Amir of Bahawalpur seeking directions against the Chief Administrator of Auqaf to disburse shares of the income from a waqf property created via a 'Farman' dated April 4, 1958, and challenging the resumption of land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and a land acquisition notification. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf constitutes a 'person' exempt from land ceilings under paragraph 2(7) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, and whether a dedicator can subsequently alter the beneficiaries or purposes of a waqf once created without reserving such a power. The Lahore High Court held that the Chief Administrator of Auqaf is a body corporate and thus falls within the exception under paragraph 2(7) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, rendering the resumption orders void. The Court further held that a dedicator divests all ownership upon creating a valid waqf and cannot subsequently alter beneficiaries or terms unless such power was reserved in the original dedication. The petition was accepted, and the impugned resumption and acquisition orders were declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf falls within the purview of the expression 'person' under paragraph 2(7) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Can a dedicator alter the purposes or beneficiaries of a waqf after its original creation if no such power was reserved in the initial declaration?
- Are the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 applicable to land held in trust by a body corporate constituted under a Provincial law?
- Whether the High Court under Article 199 can examine the validity of orders passed by land reform authorities on the touchstone of the law itself?
- Sahib Dad Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1778 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
- Safiullah Khan, vs P.I.A. Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Safir Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 974 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Safia Noureen vs S.H.O. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
- Safia Begum, Deputy Education Officer, Shorkot, Distt, Jhang vs S.H.O., P.S. Garh Maharaj Distt Jhang And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Safia Begum vs S.H.O. Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang1993 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police transferring the investigation of a criminal case to the Superintendent of Police, Range Crimes, Faisalabad, after the initial investigation had already resulted in a challan being submitted to the trial court. The petitioner, who had been declared innocent in the initial police report, argued that once a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is submitted, the police lack the legal authority to initiate a fresh or further investigation. The Lahore High Court examined the contention and rejected the petitioner's argument. The Court held that the police remain competent to conduct further investigations even after the submission of a challan to the court. The Court clarified that this authority persists even if the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and commenced recording evidence. Consequently, finding no merit in the petitioner's legal position, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, affirming the police's power to conduct subsequent investigations.
Questions settled- Does the police have the authority to conduct further investigations after the submission of a challan to the court?
- Does the commencement of trial proceedings and the recording of evidence by a court preclude the police from conducting further investigations?
- Can a police investigation be transferred to another officer or department after the initial challan has been filed?
- Safdar Khan vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 2413 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Saeen Abdul Ghani vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- Saeeduddin vs Iilrd Senior Civil Judge (East) at Karachi And AnotherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 33 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
- Saeeda Begum vs Shameem Ahmed1993 CLC 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
- Saeed And Other vs Zulfiqar Ali And OtherKLR. 1993 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed and others vs The Province of the Punjab through the Home Secretary and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad Shaha ccused vs The State and another1993 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, convicting the appellants under section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged robbery of a Suzuki pick-up and cash, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment along with fine, compensation, and default sentences. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession, the legal weight of a co-accused's confession under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the reliability of identification parades vitiated by prior police show-ups, and the necessity of independent corroboration for sustaining convictions in grave offences. The Peshawar High Court held that the retracted confession was involuntary due to prolonged police custody and lacked material corroboration, that a confession found untruthful or involuntary cannot be used even as circumstantial evidence against co-accused, and that flawed identification parades and pointations yielding no recoveries are devoid of evidentiary value. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside, establishing the principle that retracted confessions require robust, independent corroboration beyond reasonable doubt before grounding a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be relied upon to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars?
- Can the confession of a co-accused be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence against other co-accused under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if it is found to be neither true nor voluntary?
- What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the witness has already seen the accused in police custody prior to the parade?
- Does pointation of crime scenes by an accused where no incriminating material is recovered have any evidentiary value regarding guilt?
- Sadiq Niaz Rizvi vs The Collector, District Lasbella and another1993 PLD Supreme Court 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a land acquisition proceeding where the Department of Industries of the Government of Balochistan acquired land in District Lasbella for an industrial estate. Although the initial acquisition process under emergency provisions commenced in 1979, the formal award for the appellant's land was delayed due to oversight and was only announced in 1983, fixing the compensation at the 1979 rate of Rs. 5,000 per acre. The appellant challenged this valuation, seeking Rs. 60,000 per acre based on registered sale-deeds of adjacent lands. The District Judge and the High Court rejected these deeds as fictitious due to the parties' relationships and dismissed the references. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that registered sale-deeds cannot be summarily rejected as fictitious solely because the parties are related, especially when such relationships were not challenged during cross-examination. However, noting that the appellant's land was located further from the highway than the higher-valued lands, the Court determined its potential value and ordered an increase of Rs. 2,000 per acre with interest and statutory acquisition charges.
Questions settled- Can registered sale-deeds of the relevant period be excluded from determining market value solely on the ground that the transacting parties are related inter se?
- How does the physical distance of the acquired land from a main highway affect its valuation relative to other lands in the same revenue estate?
- What is the effect of an inordinate delay between the physical possession of land and the formal announcement of an award on the determination of market value under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Sadiq Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Education Society and anothers vs Pakistan and 4 others1993 CLC 2516 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Sadiq and anothers vs The State1993 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder, attempted murder, and house trespass. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, medical evidence, ballistic reports, pleas of self-defence, and the application of the principle of safe administration of criminal justice in cases involving multiple accused with varying degrees of participation and corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the conviction and death sentences of the primary accused whose weapons matched the crime empties were rightly maintained based on unimpeachable ocular and forensic evidence, the co-accused whose specific role lacked matching forensic corroboration and who had no independent motive were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is general and uncorroborated by forensic or ballistic matches against background enmity, co-accused should not be convicted solely on generalized statements if reasonable doubt exists as to their active participation.
Questions settled- Whether uncorroborated ocular testimony against co-accused lacking independent motive is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when crime empties do not match their recovered weapons?
- Does the right of private defence accrue to accused persons when victims are unarmed and attacked at different locations away from the disputed property?
- Whether absconding for an extended period coupled with generalized statements by eye-witnesses warrants a conviction when forensic evidence points exclusively to co-accused?
- Can a lesser penalty be justified for certain co-accused where ballistic reports exclusively connect the firearms of other principal offenders to the crime spots?
- Saddique Awan vs Dr. Muhammad Tauseef Ramzan1993 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order discharging a contempt notice against a medical officer (the respondent) who had submitted a report stating a detained individual had no injuries, which was later contradicted by a Medical Board finding nine injuries. The appellant had also filed an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the respondent's prosecution under Sections 193, 197, and 199 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for tendering false evidence. The High Court accepted the respondent's unconditional apology and discharged the contempt notice but failed to address the application for criminal prosecution or the respondent's subsequent pleadings asserting his report was correct. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's failure to consider the application for prosecution and the contradictory pleadings of the respondent constituted a material omission. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration of all materials on record.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can discharge a contempt notice based on an unconditional apology without deciding a pending application for prosecution under the Pakistan Penal Code for submitting false evidence?
- Is a court required to consider subsequent contradictory pleadings of a respondent when evaluating the sincerity and completeness of an unconditional apology in contempt proceedings?
- Can an appellate court remand a matter to the High Court if the High Court fails to address an application filed under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sachal Muhammad vs Ahmed Sag I-HR Shahzada and another1993 MLD 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-01Read full judgment →
- Sabz Ali vs Ijaz Hussan and others1993 CLC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
- Sabz Ali and 3 others vs The State1993 PLD Queeta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was moved by four petitioners facing trial for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether a second bail application is maintainable following the dismissal of an earlier one without fresh material, and whether an accused suffering from chronic illness is entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the application, holding that a second bail application is only competent if based on new developments or fresh material, and that the mere submission of a challan does not constitute such a ground. Regarding the medical plea, the Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the accused's condition could not be adequately managed within jail or local hospital facilities. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is only available if it is established that the accused suffers from a disease incurable within jail or hospital premises.
Questions settled- Is the mere submission of a challan a sufficient ground to maintain a second bail application after the dismissal of a previous one?
- Under what circumstances can an accused be released on bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the filing of a second bail application require the existence of fresh material or new developments not available at the time of the first application?
- Can a confessional statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be used as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused in the same trial?
- Sabiruddin vs Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti and 2 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had sought to disqualify respondent No. 1 from holding membership in the Zila Council, Chakwal, on the ground that being a regular employee of the United Bank Limited, a nationalized bank wholly owned and controlled by the Federal Government, he was disqualified under Article 63(1)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with section 21(1)(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether nationalized banks fall under the proprietary or regulatory control of the Federal Government so as to attract disqualification for public office. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that under the Banks Nationalisation Act 1974, the entire shareholding, management, and control of nationalized banks vest in the Federal Government, constituting positive and proprietary control rather than mere regulatory control. The key principle laid down is that employment in a corporate entity whose proprietary control, capital ownership, and management are vested in the Federal Government renders an individual disqualified from contesting or holding membership in a local council.
Questions settled- Whether an employee of a nationalized bank is disqualified from being a candidate or member of a local council under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- Does the control exercised by the Federal Government over nationalized banks under the Banks Nationalisation Act 1974 constitute proprietary control?
- What is the distinction between proprietary control and regulatory control of the Government in the context of electoral disqualifications?
- Sabir Ali vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1993 MLD 321 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of personal need. The core legal questions were whether the initial failure of the respondent to sign the ejectment petition and Vakalatnama rendered the proceedings void ab initio, and whether a female landlord is legally barred from seeking eviction for business purposes. The Court held that the failure to sign the pleadings and Vakalatnama is a mere irregularity, not a fatal defect, and is curable at any stage by allowing the plaintiff to sign the documents. The Court affirmed that such an amendment relates back to the date of the original institution of the suit, validating previous proceedings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the contention that a female landlord cannot seek eviction for business purposes, noting that she may operate a business through agents or employees. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's bona fide personal need, finding no misreading of evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to sign an ejectment petition and Vakalatnama constitute a fatal defect or a curable irregularity?
- Does an amendment to a plaint or petition allowing for signatures alter the date of the institution of the suit?
- Is a female landlord legally barred from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building for the purpose of conducting business?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding bona fide personal need be challenged in a second appeal without proving misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Saadi Asmatullah vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan And 4K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 61 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Saadabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Managing Director, Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority and 3 others1993 MLD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-28Read full judgment →
- S.T. Trading vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax1993 CLC 1915 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
- S.P. Murugappan vs Income-Tax Officer C.1993 PTD 452 · Madras High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- S.M. Yawar Ali- vs S. Abid Ali and another1993 MLD 2205 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- S.M. Tufail Ahmad vs Willayat Hussain and 2 others1993 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation filed by the applicant, a senior advocate, against three police officers following his arrest and subsequent acquittal in a criminal case. The applicant challenged the concurrent dismissal of his suit by the trial and appellate courts. The core legal question was whether police officers, acting in their official capacity to investigate a complaint, are liable for damages for malicious prosecution merely because the accused was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the mere acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not automatically render investigating officers liable for malicious prosecution. The ratio established is that a plaintiff must prove that the defendants acted with malice or improper motive and that a cause of action accrued against them. Since the applicant failed to demonstrate any mala fides or specific wrongful acts by the police officers, who were merely performing their statutory duties, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision application.
Questions settled- Does the mere acquittal of an accused person under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the investigating police officers liable for damages for malicious prosecution?
- Is a plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution required to prove mala fides or improper motive on the part of investigating officers to succeed in a claim for damages?
- Can a court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where the lower courts' concurrent findings are not shown to be perverse?
- S. Muhammad Athar and 3 others vs S.M. Mazhar Jaffery and 8 others1993 PLD Karachi 389 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- S. M. Amin Haider vs Niamat Ali And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 292 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Rustom Cawasji Irani vs Meherwan Cawasji Irani1993 PLD Queeta 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-07-17Read full judgment →
- Rustam Zaman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2010 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
- Russie M. Dinshaw vs Govt. of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-18Read full judgment →
- Rozina Ashraf vs Khalid Mehmood1993 MLD 2070 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- Roshan Din vs Fateh Din and another1993 CLC 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-28Read full judgment →
- Roshan Din Roshan vs The State1993 CLC 389 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Roshan Ali Shah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1476 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →