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.
- Muhammad Rafi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to bail in a case presenting conflicting versions of the occurrence, specifically where the initial FIR named a different absconding accused and a subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure implicated the petitioner through the testimony of the deceased's wife. The Lahore High Court held that where a case involves multiple and irreconcilable versions of events, it squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that contradictory versions and delayed supplementary statements creating reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of an accused warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.
Questions settled- Does a case of conflicting versions fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary evidence against him consists of a tainted statement requiring further corroboration?
- Does an unexplained delay in implicating an accused through a supplementary statement create reasonable grounds for granting bail?
- Muhammad Qayyum And 19 Others vs Rana Warris Ali Khan1992 P Cr. L J 2641 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Parvez vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Panah And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2049 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nisar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2237 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir vs The Superintendent of Police and 3 others-1992 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir vs The State1992 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, upheld by the High Court. The appellant contended that the acquittal of his co-accused, who was implicated by the same prosecution witnesses, necessitated his own acquittal based on the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, arguing that the witnesses were unreliable and interested. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence and the medical testimony, noting that the lower courts had carefully sifted the evidence. The Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused was a measure of abundant caution due to the lack of corroborating medical evidence for the alleged firearm injury, rather than a total rejection of the prosecution witnesses' credibility. The Court affirmed that the presence of the witnesses was natural and their testimony regarding the appellant was corroborated by other evidence, including recovery of the murder weapon. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the partial acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically invalidate the conviction of another where the evidence against the latter is distinct and well-founded.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
- Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be accepted against one accused while being rejected against another?
- Is the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus a rule of law or a rule of caution in the appreciation of evidence?
- Muhammad Nazir vs Tariq and another1992 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted respondent Tariq of charges under Section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondent and sentenced him to death, while acquitting his co-accused. The High Court accepted the respondent's appeal, disbelieving the ocular and recovery evidence due to the non-production of private attesting witnesses, and held that since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it was unnecessary to examine the accused's plea of self-defence. The core legal question was whether the acquittal was justified and whether the High Court erred in failing to put the prosecution version in juxtaposition with the defence plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once the prosecution evidence is found unreliable and the prosecution fails to prove its case, there is no need to examine the defence plea, and an order of acquittal cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal by the High Court is justified when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved and fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Is it necessary for the court to examine the defence plea when the prosecution has failed to establish its case?
- Does the possibility of another view furnish a good ground for interference in an order of acquittal by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Nazir vs Munshi Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 190 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir Alias Pappu vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir Alias Pappu vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 523 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir Afandi vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi And 3 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the return of his plaint by the lower courts, which held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the recovery of bank loan dues as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court or the Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, held jurisdiction over a dispute between a borrower and a banking company. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The Court reasoned that the Special Court, while exercising civil jurisdiction, is vested with all powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is fully competent to grant the relief of declaration and injunction sought by the petitioner. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 6(4) of the Ordinance. The principle established is that where a special forum is created for specific disputes, the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts is ousted, and the Special Court is the appropriate forum for all claims arising out of a loan.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the recovery of bank loan dues as arrears of land revenue?
- Can a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, grant the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction?
- Does the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit depend solely on the averments made in the plaint even when the court inherently lacks jurisdiction?
- Is the jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in matters relating to loans between a borrower and a banking company under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Muhammad Nazeer vs Master Muhammad Gul And Another1992 P Cr. L J 674 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazeer Ahmad vs Pakistan International Airlines1992 PLC 831 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Federation of Pakistan and 61 others1992 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed appeals filed by certain Programme Managers and set aside a notification of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that had superseded prior regularization and confirmation orders issued by the Director-General, Pakistan National Centre. The core legal question concerned whether the competent authority validly regularized and confirmed the ad-hoc appointments under Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules of 1986, and whether the government could subsequently rescind those orders. The Supreme Court held that the Director-General was competent to make the regularization and confirmation orders under Rule 7, and because those orders had already been acted upon and created valuable vested rights in favor of the respondents, they could not be cancelled under the rule of locus poenitentiae. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's view that completed administrative orders conferring accrued rights are protected against arbitrary recession.
Questions settled- Whether ad hoc appointments can be regularized under Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules?
- Does the government have the power to rescind an earlier administrative order under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 once it has been acted upon?
- Whether the rule of locus poenitentiae applies when orders have taken effect and created valuable rights?
- Whether ad hoc service counts for the purpose of seniority when converted into regular appointment?
- Muhammad Nawaz vs Additional District Judge1992 CLC 1487 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a guardianship dispute over the custody of a ten-year-old girl, Tahira Yasmin, between her mother, Mst. Naziran, and her paternal-grandfather, Muhammad Nawaz. The Trial Court initially granted custody to the grandfather under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, holding that the mother had forfeited her right of hizanat by contracting a remarriage. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision and allowed the minor to remain with her mother. The petitioner challenged this appellate order in the Lahore High Court under constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the mother's remarriage to a stranger entails an absolute forfeiture of her right to custody, and whether the welfare of the minor warranted transferring custody to the paternal-grandfather. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration to which personal law is subordinated, and that remarriage with a person out of the prohibited degrees does not entail an absolute disqualification of the mother's preferential right to hizanat. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is a question of fact determined by material circumstances—such as financial stability, proper care, and the emotional well-being of the child—rather than rigid presumptions.
Questions settled- Does remarriage of a mother with a person out of prohibited degrees entail an absolute forfeiture of her right of Hizanat?
- Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining child custody under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
- Can the personal law regarding custody be subordinated to the welfare of the minor?
- Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Khan Zaman Khan Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 121 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir vs Muhammad Alam1992 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of four civil revision petitions arising from suits for recovery of money filed on the basis of promissory notes under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in granting conditional leave to appear and defend the suits upon the deposit of half the suit amount or furnishing a bank guarantee, given that the petitioner admitted signing the promissory notes but alleged coercion. The Lahore High Court held that since execution of the promissory notes was admitted, a statutory presumption of consideration arose under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereby justifying conditional leave to defend; however, the specific condition of depositing cash or a bank guarantee was excessively harsh. The court modified the impugned orders by replacing the cash deposit and bank guarantee requirement with a direction to furnish property security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted, conditional leave to defend is justified, but onerous financial conditions should be mitigated to serve the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Whether conditional leave to appear and defend a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be granted when the execution of a promissory note is admitted?
- Does a presumption of consideration arise under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 when the signature and execution of a promissory note are admitted?
- Is a condition requiring the deposit of half the suit amount or a bank guarantee for granting leave to defend always justifiable, or can it be modified to personal or property security in the interest of justice?
- Muhammad Naseer Alias Billa And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2244 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem vs The State1992 MLD 260 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem vs The State1992 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Special Judge, Speedy Trials Court-II, Lahore, convicting the appellant under Section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991, for non-appearance as a prosecution witness despite receiving summons. The appellant, a government employee, attributed his absence to departmental work, a sister's sickness, and school duties for his children. The Special Judge found this explanation unsatisfactory, leading to a conviction and a sentence of one month simple imprisonment. The Supreme Court agreed that the explanation for non-attendance was insufficient. While declining to apply Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, the Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, considering the appellant's youth, government service, family responsibilities, and remorse. The Court emphasized that non-appearance in response to a court process is to be deprecated, warning against future leniency for similar conduct.
Questions settled- Can a witness be convicted for non-appearance in court despite receiving summons?
- What constitutes a satisfactory explanation for a witness's non-appearance in court?
- Can a higher court reduce a sentence for non-appearance as a witness while upholding the conviction?
- Are personal circumstances like family responsibilities and remorse valid grounds for leniency in sentencing for non-appearance as a witness?
- Muhammad Naeem Butt vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1845 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem and another vs M/s. Karimi Bidi Works through1992 CLC 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller striking off the defence of the appellants (tenants) and directing them to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent (landlord) under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the tenants' deposit of rent in a previous miscellaneous rent case instead of the current ejectment proceedings—despite a consent order requiring deposit in the latter—constituted a mere technical default or a contumacious non-compliance. The Sindh High Court held that after consenting to deposit rent in the current proceedings and complying for a period, the tenants' subsequent reversion to depositing rent in the old case without permission was a deliberate defiance of the court order, not a technical mistake, particularly as the plea of a bona fide mix-up lacked evidentiary support. The court affirmed that non-compliance with a tentative rent order properly attracts the striking off of the tenant's defence and eviction.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in a previous miscellaneous case instead of the current rent case, in violation of a consent order, constitute a default under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Whether a tenant's unexplained shift in depositing rent after complying with a tentative rent order amounts to contumacious non-compliance justifying the striking off of defence?
- Can a factual plea of a bona fide mistake in depositing rent be accepted without supporting evidence or affidavit from the tenant?
- Muhammad Naeem alias Naeema vs The State1992 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the Lahore High Court order dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 13/20 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 for possessing an unlicensed Klashnikov. The appellant was tried in absentia by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) after absconding from proceedings, and was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offence given the lapse of amending ordinances under Article 89 of the Constitution, whether the recovery was vitiated due to non-compliance with section 103 of the Cr.P.C., and the reliability of police officials as witnesses. The Supreme Court held that procedural laws and subsequent valid legislation (Act V of 1990 and intervening ordinances) retrospectively validated the Special Court's jurisdiction over possession of automatic weapons like Klashnikovs from the relevant dates, police witnesses are as credible as any other citizens in the absence of mala fides, and section 103 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to recoveries made during ongoing investigations. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment and set aside the fine.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 have jurisdiction to try offences relating to unlicensed automatic weapons in view of the retrospective validation by subsequent legislation?
- Are police officials considered competent witnesses whose depositions can form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration under section 103 Cr.P.C.?
- Do the provisions of section 103 of the Cr.P.C. apply to recoveries made during the course of an investigation of a criminal case?
- What is the effect on jurisdiction when an amending ordinance adding offenses to the schedule of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act lapses under Article 89 of the Constitution before being re-promulgated or enacted?
- Muhammad Naeem Akhtar and 2 others vs The Speaker, Sindh Provincial1992 CLC 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Naeem Akhtar and two others challenging the acceptance of their resignations from the Sindh Provincial Assembly by the Speaker. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of Article 69, whether Article 64 of the Constitution of Pakistan requires acceptance of a resignation by the Speaker to take effect, and whether the petitioners' resignations were voluntary. The court held that the petition is maintainable and not barred by Article 69, and distinguished Article 64 of the Pakistan Constitution from the Indian Constitution's Article 190(3)(b), clarifying that Article 64 does not require the Speaker's formal acceptance for a resignation to become effective and for the seat to fall vacant. However, the Speaker must hold an inquiry if there are doubts or representations regarding the genuineness or voluntary nature of the resignation. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish coercion and had not informed the Speaker that their resignations were defective or unauthorized. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition challenging the acceptance of a member's resignation by the Speaker of a Provincial Assembly is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does Article 64 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require the formal acceptance of a resignation by the Speaker for the seat to become vacant?
- When is the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly required to hold an inquiry regarding the genuineness or voluntary nature of a member's resignation?
- Does the bar under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to the action of the Speaker in accepting a member's resignation?
- Muhammad Muzaffar Rabbani vs Board of Intermediate & SecondaryK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 259 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Mustafa vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a writ petition challenging the levy of property tax. The High Court, skeptical of the petitioner's claim regarding the acquisition of a bungalow, had directed an inquiry into the petitioner's sources of income. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in ordering such an inquiry at the preliminary stage of a writ petition and whether the petition for leave to appeal against this interim order was maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court possesses the inherent power to conduct preliminary inquiries to satisfy itself regarding the factual basis of a writ petition before admission. The Court emphasized that a petitioner cannot expect the court to accept assertions at face value without scrutiny. Furthermore, the Court criticized the filing of the petition at the Rawalpindi registry when the matter originated in Lahore, noting that counsel must safeguard the client's financial interests, and directed the counsel to compensate the client for unnecessary expenses.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the factual basis of a writ petition before admitting it?
- Is an interim order directing an inquiry into a petitioner's sources of income a fit subject for a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a legal counsel have a duty to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses for their client by choosing the appropriate forum?
- Muhammad Mustafa vs Excise and Taxation Officer And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review application arising from a previous order dated 28th October 1991, which had questioned the conduct of legal counsel regarding the filing of a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (C.P.L.A.) at Rawalpindi. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a review application in the face of procedural objections and the court's inherent power to exercise suo motu review to address matters involving the professional conduct of advocates. The Supreme Court held that the Advocate-on-Record (A.O.R.) had provided the necessary certification, absolving the counsel of improper motives regarding the filing location. The Court determined that the case was a fit instance for exercising suo motu review power, prioritizing the resolution of issues affecting the professional standing of legal practitioners over technical objections. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its inherent authority and duty to effectively control proceedings, noting that no evidence existed to link the proceedings to external resolutions by the Pakistan Bar Council, thereby allowing the review to proceed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court exercise suo motu review power in fit cases despite procedural objections?
- Does the Supreme Court possess the inherent power and duty to control legal proceedings?
- Is a review application maintainable when it concerns the professional conduct of legal counsel?
- Muhammad Murtaza Khan vs Govt. of Sindhh And 10 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 72) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-01-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munshi vs Baj Din and others1992 SCMR 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a land settlement dispute. The respondents' father was allotted the disputed land on a temporary basis in 1951 and remained in continuous possession. The petitioner, claiming a subsequent permanent allotment in 1961, sought to displace the respondents. Crucially, the petitioner failed to take possession or demand any share of the produce (Batai) for nearly 25 years after the alleged 1961 allotment. The High Court allowed the respondents' constitutional petition, prompting this appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's prolonged inaction and failure to assert possession or claim produce for over two decades undermined their claim. The Court emphasized that the question of possession was highly relevant. Furthermore, the petitioner's failure to object to the respondents' allotment for 24 years, coupled with the Department's recognition of the respondents' possession, rendered the petitioner's claim untenable. The Court concluded that the petitioner's conduct precluded the grant of special leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Is the question of possession relevant in a dispute over land allotment where one party has remained in continuous possession for decades?
- Does a failure to assert possession or claim produce for a significant period after an alleged allotment undermine the validity of that allotment claim?
- Can a party who fails to object to an opposing party's allotment for over two decades successfully challenge that allotment in court?
- Muhammad Munir Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mumtaz vs Muhammad Shah and 4 others1992 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a pre-emption dispute involving a triangular contest between a pre-emptor, a rival pre-emptor, and vendees. The core legal question was whether a vendee, who acquired a status (ownership in the estate) after the sale but before the institution of the pre-emption suit, could rely on that status to defeat the pre-emptor's claim, even though that acquired status was subsequently lost through a separate pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court held that while a vendee may improve their status before the institution of a suit, such an improvement is subject to the mandatory provisions of Section 28-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Court ruled that if a party's status is derived from a transaction that is itself subject to pre-emption, and that status is subsequently lost through the enforcement of a pre-emption right, the Court must disallow any claim or plea based on that lost status. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellate court's decree in favor of the pre-emptor was restored.
Questions settled- Does Section 28-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 require a court to disallow a claim based on a status that was lost through a subsequent pre-emption decree?
- Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption claim by improving their status after the sale but before the institution of the suit if that status is later lost?
- Is a pre-emptor's right to pre-empt affected by a vendee's acquisition of status that is itself subject to a pending or successful pre-emption claim?
- Muhammad Mostkeem and 2 others vs Abdullah Jan1992 CLC 2469 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mazhar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 443 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Mazhar against his conviction and sentence for the murder of Ghulam Rasul, alongside a State appeal against the acquittal of his brother, Naseer Ahmad. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Mazhar under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting Naseer Ahmad. During the appellate proceedings, the parties submitted a compromise, asserting that the legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven the accused in the name of Allah. The court examined the legal heirs, including the widow, mother, father, brother, and the complainant, who confirmed the compromise and the forgiveness of the accused. The court observed that the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance had rendered offences under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 compoundable, with corresponding amendments to section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise, acquitted the appellant, and maintained the acquittal of the respondent, establishing that a murder conviction may be set aside upon a valid compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased.
Questions settled- Is an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 compoundable?
- Can a conviction for murder be set aside based on a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Can natural guardians of minor heirs validly compound an offence of murder on behalf of the minors?
- Muhammad Masud vs Ikramullah Khan.,1992 PLD Supreme Court 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the vendee claimed exemption from pre-emption under Section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The lower courts denied the exemption, reasoning that the appellant owned agricultural land in the village, which they equated to a 'vacant site' under the statute. The core legal question was whether the ownership of agricultural land disqualifies a vendee from claiming the exemption provided for purchasing land to construct a house. The Supreme Court held that the terms 'agricultural land' and 'vacant site' are distinct and not synonymous. The Court emphasized that the legislature, having used both terms in the same provision, intended them to carry different meanings. Consequently, ownership of agricultural land does not disqualify a vendee from the exemption. As the appellant satisfied the statutory requirements—being a resident, purchasing less than two Kanals, intending to build a house, and owning no house or 'vacant site'—the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Does the ownership of agricultural land in a village disqualify a vendee from claiming the exemption under Section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Are the terms 'agricultural land' and 'vacant site' synonymous under Section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- What are the conditions required for a vendee to claim exemption from pre-emption under Section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Muhammad Masihuzzaman vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's plea against his premature retirement from the Civil Service of Pakistan. The appellant, having served less than 25 years, was retired at his own request. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could be retired prematurely in violation of the Interim Constitution of 1972, and whether the principle of estoppel applied when the retirement was initiated by the employee. The Supreme Court held that the retirement order was unconstitutional, void, and of no legal effect. The Court affirmed that constitutional provisions regarding service conditions are mandatory and cannot be circumvented, even by the request of the civil servant concerned. The principle established is that there is no estoppel against a statute or the Constitution; any agreement or action that defeats a statutory safeguard is against public policy and void. Consequently, the appellant was deemed to have remained in service until the age of superannuation.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be retired prematurely before completing 25 years of service if they request it?
- Does the principle of estoppel apply to prevent a civil servant from challenging a retirement order that they themselves requested?
- Is an order of retirement that violates constitutional provisions regarding service tenure void ab initio?
- Can constitutional safeguards regarding service conditions be waived by an agreement between the government and a civil servant?
- Muhammad Maroof vs The State1992 SCMR 2327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had modified his conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. Originally convicted under Section 10(3) and Section 11, the Federal Shariat Court converted the convictions to Section 10(2) and Section 16, respectively, imposing concurrent sentences of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and fines. The prosecution alleged the petitioner abducted the complainant's daughter, Mst. Shabana, under false pretenses and committed Zina-bil-Jabr. The petitioner contended that the victim was a consenting adult, highlighted the lack of investigation at the alleged crime scene, noted the absence of recoveries, and pointed to an eleven-day delay in filing the F.I.R. arising from strained relations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence on record, emphasizing the necessity of safe administration of criminal justice. The application for bail was not pressed, and the appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal to re-appraise evidence in a criminal case involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be converted to Section 10(2) based on the finding of consent?
- Muhammad Maroof vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others1992 CLC 249 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Maqsood vs Water and Power Development Authority1992 PLD Supreme Court 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a WAPDA employee, challenged the enhancement of his penalty from a reduction in time scale to removal from service, which was ordered by the Authority under its revisional powers. The core legal questions were whether the exercise of such revisional power violated the constitutional protection against double punishment and whether the procedure followed, specifically the requirement of a personal hearing, was satisfied. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of revisional powers under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, does not constitute double punishment for the same offence, as it is a mechanism for review rather than a second prosecution. Consequently, the Court ruled that Rule 12 is not ultra vires Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant failed to substantiate his claim that he was denied a personal hearing, as evidence indicated his presence at the relevant meeting. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Authority's power to enhance penalties upon review.
Questions settled- Does the exercise of revisional power to enhance a disciplinary penalty violate the constitutional protection against double punishment?
- Is Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, ultra vires Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can an authority enhance a penalty imposed on an employee without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing?
- Muhammad Mansha vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha vs The State1992 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 7(1)(b) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991, for the possession of an unlicensed stengun. The appellant contended that the charge was defective due to the prosecution's failure to establish the notification period for surrendering arms, that the complainant was not examined, and that the trial court failed to put specific questions regarding surrender failure during the examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the recovery was sufficiently proven by the testimony of two witnesses who signed the recovery memo, rendering the complainant's absence immaterial. The Court further held that a charge under the Ordinance inherently presupposes the possession of illicit arms, and any technical defect in the charge is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were maintained as the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce the complainant as a witness invalidate a recovery memo if other witnesses who signed it testify?
- Can a conviction under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991 be sustained if the charge does not explicitly mention the notification period for surrender?
- Is it necessary to specifically question an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the failure to surrender illicit arms?
- Does a defect in the framing of a charge automatically vitiate criminal proceedings under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Mansha vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansha And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi City ,1992 PLC 1094 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif Khaukhar vs Chairman, Development Authority, Muzaffarabad and another1992 CLC 2243 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the removal of the petitioner from his position as Estate Officer within the Muzaffarabad Development Authority (MDA). The petitioner, initially appointed by the Chairman and approved by the Authority, was removed on the Prime Minister's direction, then reinstated, and subsequently removed again by the Chairman without assigning reasons. The core legal questions were whether the MDA is an agency of the government amenable to writ jurisdiction, and whether the petitioner’s removal without a show-cause notice or hearing was lawful. The Court held that the MDA, being governed by the government-appointed Board, constitutes an agency of the state, rendering the petition maintainable. It further held that the removal order was void as it violated the principles of natural justice, which are implied in every statute even where not explicitly provided. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s removal was mala fide and without lawful authority, as no opportunity of being heard was provided. The key principle laid down is that public authorities cannot terminate service without adhering to the rule of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing.
Questions settled- Is a development authority created by statute an agency of the government subject to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the principle of natural justice require a show-cause notice and a hearing before an employee can be removed from service, even if the statute is silent on the matter?
- Can an order of appointment, once approved by a competent selection board, be rescinded by the appointing authority without valid legal grounds?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous writ petition without a decision on merits operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent petition?
- Muhammad Latif Butt vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif And Other vs Ghulam Rasool And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 40 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif and 35 others vs Ghulam Rasul and another1992 CLC 634 · Board of Revenue · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2535 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Juman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jehangir vs Manager, Island Textile Mills Ltd. and another1992 PLC 618 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1725 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2249 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jaseem and another vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills1992 PLC 816 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamal through his Legal Heirs vs Haji Shamsuddin and 21992 MLD 666 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jalil Khan vs Mst. Dilshad Begum and 8 others1992 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jahangir and 6 others vs Rashid alias Sheeda and 2 others1992 MLD 58 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Income Tax Officer Mirpur and 2 others1992 PTD 1407 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail Khan vs The State1992 MLD 595 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and others vs Malik Muhammad Shafi and others1992 CLC 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 called in question concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 for a right of way as an easement of necessity was decreed. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court illegally rejected an application for site inspection and whether the concurrent findings regarding the easement of necessity were sustainable. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that site inspection is a discretionary power and not a substitute for evidence, and that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless suffering from misreading or non-consideration. The key principle laid down is that an easement of necessity arises when it is demonstrated that a property cannot be accessed or used without it, and concurrent factual findings on such matters will not be upset in revision merely because an alternative view is possible.
Questions settled- Whether site inspection under Order 18 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be treated as a substitute for substantive evidence?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding an easement of necessity be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- When does an easement of necessity legally arise in respect of an immovable property?
- Muhammad Ismail And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Islam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 552 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Islam And Other vs Nauroz1992 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 499 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-07-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State,1992 P Cr. L J 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by Summary Military Court No. 52, Lahore, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner contended that the trial violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution because of a prior departmental enquiry and case withdrawal, and additionally alleged mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a second prosecution is barred only when the earlier proceedings have ended in a final conviction or acquittal. Since the petitioner's initial case was merely split up for lack of sanction without concluding in an acquittal or conviction, the subsequent prosecution did not violate the principles of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, or Article 13. Furthermore, the allegations of mala fides were unsubstantiated, and the challenge concerned a past and closed transaction protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent prosecution violate Article 13 of the Constitution where previous criminal proceedings were split up for want of sanction and did not end in an acquittal or conviction?
- Can a departmental inquiry or withdrawal of a case for departmental probe bar subsequent criminal prosecution under the doctrine of double jeopardy?
- What standard of proof is required to substantiate a plea of mala fides challenging a criminal conviction?
- Whether convictions rendered by a Summary Military Court and treated as past and closed transactions are protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution?
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 70 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazim vs Muhammad AkbarK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq Khan And 3 Others vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq and anothers vs Mst. Sufia Begum1992 SCMR 1629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for specific performance regarding a bungalow in Sialkot Cantonment. The sale agreement contained a stipulation that the vendor would obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from military authorities prior to executing the registered sale deed. When military authorities repeatedly refused the NOC, one of the two joint purchasers executed a separate memorandum agreeing to withdraw from the contract if the NOC was not obtained by a specified date. The suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court, but reversed on appeal by the Lahore High Court, which awarded earnest money instead. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a sale contract becomes frustrated and incapable of specific performance due to the non-objection certificate being refused by military authorities within reasonable time, and whether a later NOC issued during appellate proceedings can revive the frustrated agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal of the required NOC frustrated the contract. Furthermore, a subsequent internal military communication granting NOC could not resurrect an agreement that had already terminated by law and party agreement.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of a required no-objection certificate from military authorities render a contract for sale of cantonment property frustrated and incapable of specific performance?
- Can a subsequent issuance of a no-objection certificate during appellate proceedings revive a contract that was previously frustrated by operation of law and party agreement?
- What is the effect of one joint purchaser withdrawing from a sale agreement where the contract is joint with respect to the purchasers?
- Muhammad Ishaoue vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1973 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Isa and 3 others vs Dilmeer and 9 others1992 MLD 686 · Board of Revenue · 1990-08-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 756 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad And 5 Other vs Mahal Mian And 7 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court addressed whether persons alleged to have disobeyed a temporary injunction issued by an Assistant Commissioner exercising the powers of a Deputy Commissioner under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Regulation II of 1975 could be prosecuted under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that where a specific mechanism and remedy is provided under section 13 of PATA Regulation II of 1975—namely, the enforcement of orders in the same manner as a Civil Court, which includes invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 2, sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for breach of injunction—criminal proceedings under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code are inappropriate and unwarranted. The Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR, and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the specific enforcement provisions provided under the Regulation.
Questions settled- Whether a person disobeying an interim injunction passed under PATA Regulation II of 1975 can be prosecuted under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does section 13 of PATA Regulation II of 1975 provide an adequate and specific remedy for the enforcement of orders through the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can criminal proceedings initiated via an FIR for the violation of a civil injunction in a PATA area be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2561 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2092 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and confirmation case arise from a judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of Hafiz Muhammad Din, while acquitting the co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of interested eyewitnesses who suppressed material facts concerning cross-injuries to the accused and the burning of a vehicle, the validity of recoveries made in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the applicability of the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus when co-accused are acquitted upon the same evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the suppression of genesis of the incident, lack of independent corroboration, flawed recoveries, and the non-examination of the material Investigating Officer. The court declined to confirm the death sentence, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, laying down that an accused is not required to establish his innocence and that withholding material facts by eyewitnesses and failure to prove recoveries through independent local mashirs entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the suppression of material facts and cross-injuries by eyewitnesses discredits their testimony in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Does the failure to associate independent local witnesses render recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 legally nugatory?
- Whether an accused person can be convicted on the same evidence which has been disbelieved with regard to a co-accused without strong corroboration?
- What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to examine the material Investigating Officer on the proof of the case?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Superintendent of Police and others-1992 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank, Nooriabad1992 PLC 893 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 58) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi and others vs Mayor, Hyderabad Municipal1992 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside concurrent decrees in favor of the appellants, holding that a municipal suit was defectively filed against the Mayor instead of the Corporation and that animal blood constituted 'refuse' under municipal law. The core legal questions concerned whether blood from slaughtered animals belongs to the animal's owner as marketable property protected by fundamental rights, and whether the municipal corporation is statutorily entitled to collect and dispose of it as refuse. The Supreme Court held that while animal blood is a separate, marketable property belonging to the animal's owner protected under Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the municipal corporation nonetheless has a statutory duty under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 to remove 'waste blood' if left on the premises. However, butchers may collect and remove the blood before it becomes waste blood, provided they do not breach hygienic rules. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the trial court's decree restored.
Questions settled- Whether blood ensuing the slaughter of an animal belongs to the owner of the animal as a marketable property?
- Does the statutory definition of 'refuse' under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 include waste blood?
- Can a municipal corporation deprive an owner of the blood of a slaughtered animal without compensation in view of Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Under what conditions may the owners of slaughtered animals collect and remove blood from municipal slaughter houses without violating the corporation's statutory duties?
- Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi And Other vs Mayor Hyderabad MunicipalK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the ownership rights of butchers over the blood of animals slaughtered in municipal slaughterhouses versus the Municipal Corporation's statutory duty to collect 'refuse'. The core legal question was whether blood is a marketable property belonging to the animal owner or 'refuse' that the Corporation is statutorily obligated to remove. The Supreme Court held that while blood is a species of property belonging to the animal owner, it becomes 'waste blood'—and thus 'refuse'—once it is left on the slaughterhouse floor or in drains. Consequently, the Corporation has a statutory duty to remove such waste to maintain hygienic conditions. However, the Court clarified that owners may collect the blood before it becomes 'waste blood' provided they do not violate statutory rules or sanitary requirements. The principle laid down is that while the right to property under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution is protected, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, including municipal obligations to maintain public sanitation and dispose of refuse as defined by law.
Questions settled- Is blood from a slaughtered animal considered property belonging to the owner of the animal?
- Does the statutory definition of 'refuse' in the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 include waste blood?
- Can a municipal corporation claim the right to collect blood from slaughtered animals as 'refuse' under its statutory duties?
- Are the property rights of animal owners under the Constitution subject to municipal regulations regarding slaughterhouse sanitation?
- Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate High Court, Lahore AndAnother1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 501 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Federal Shariat Court addresses twelve Shariat petitions challenging various provisions of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952, and its amending Ordinance of 1979 as being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question involved whether the substitution of interest-based loaning with a joint ownership and rent-sharing (Musharaka) system complied with Islamic injunctions, and whether specific statutory provisions regarding returns, borrowing powers, rental assessments, past loans, and recovery mechanisms contained elements of prohibited Riba. The court held that while the Musharaka financing scheme is generally in consonance with Islamic principles, certain provisions containing references to interest, ambiguous returns, one-sided rental assessments, and past interest-bearing loans are repugnant to Islam. The court directed necessary legislative amendments and deletions by a specified date to bring the impugned provisions in conformity with the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, laying down the principle that all financial transactions and borrowing powers of statutory corporations must be strictly interest-free and equitable.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 relating to interest-bearing borrowing powers are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the system of joint ownership and rent sharing (Musharaka) adopted by the House Building Finance Corporation comply with Islamic principles?
- Whether past interest-bearing loans granted before the 1979 amendments can continue to be governed by terms allowing interest under Islamic law?
- Can provisions allowing the unilateral and one-sided assessment of rental income by a financing corporation be sustained under Islamic commercial law?
- Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others vs The State1992 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder and simple hurt. The appellants attacked the deceased and his brother following a quarrel initiated by the deceased beating the mother of one of the appellants. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was applicable, or if the incident constituted a sudden fight under Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the incident occurred spontaneously without premeditation when the appellants rushed to defend their mother. Finding that the conditions for Exception 4 to Section 300 were satisfied, the Court ruled that the act was not cruel and that the appellants acted individually rather than in furtherance of a common intention. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and converted the principal offender's conviction to Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle established is that where a sudden fight occurs without premeditation and without undue advantage or cruelty, Section 34 is inapplicable, and individual liability prevails.
Questions settled- Does a sudden fight arising from a quarrel negate the application of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When does a murder case fall under the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused be held liable for the acts of others under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the incident is a spontaneous reaction to a sudden provocation?
- Muhammad Iqbal And 3 Other vs Deputy Commissioner/District1992 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the detention order of petitioner No. 1 and warrants of arrest against petitioners 2 to 4 issued by the District Magistrate under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions involved the authority of the District Magistrate to order detention exceeding 30 days, the mandatory requirement of supplying grounds of detention under section 3(6) of the Ordinance, and the legality of using preventive detention for pending or past criminal charges. The Peshawar High Court held that the District Magistrate's order directing detention for three months exceeded the delegated 30-day statutory limit under the Ordinance, violated the mandatory requirement of communicating grounds of detention, and lacked foundational material. The Court concluded that preventive detention cannot be based on ordinary criminal cases and that the mechanical exercise of power without record constituted an abuse of authority. The writ petition was accepted with costs, declaring the detention and warrants without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether a District Magistrate has the authority to pass an order of preventive detention exceeding thirty days under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
- Is the supply of the grounds of detention a mandatory requirement under section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
- Can ordinary criminal cases or allegations forming the subject of trial be made the basis for preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
- Does the failure of authorities to produce material in support of a detention order raise a legal presumption that the order lacks foundational material?
- Muhammad Iqbal And 2 Others vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 533 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Alias Balla vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2230 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Alias Bala vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iobal Khokhar And 3 Others vs Commandant, Desert1992 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas vs Ijaz Ahmad Butt and another1992 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court whereby a criminal miscellaneous application for bail was converted into a constitutional petition and the respondent was released on bail. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail and the maintainability of bail proceedings when the respondent's name was placed in column No. 2 of the challan, meaning he was not formally treated as an accused person by the investigating agency and no steps had been taken to arrest him. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted at this stage because the prosecution did not treat the respondent as an accused person, and the question of the validity of the bail order would only arise if and when the prosecution takes steps to treat him as such. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a person whose name appears in column No. 2 of the challan and who has not been formally treated as an accused person by the police maintain a petition for bail?
- Whether the High Court's order granting bail can be challenged when the prosecution has not yet taken steps to arrest or treat the individual as an accused person?