Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Ilyas vs Addl. Distt Judge EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ihtasham-Ul-Haq and others vs Postmaster General, Southern Punjab, Lahore and others1992 PLC 533 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1287 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 577 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs M.Y. Corporation through General Manager1992 CLC 1703 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs Muhammad Din and others1992 CLC 2022 · Board of Revenue · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 others vs Ihsanul Haq and 2 others1992 MLD 164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibraheem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 572 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2139 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 808 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1683 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs vs Noor1992 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court
  Regular Second AppealPleadingsMartial Law Regulation No. 64Procedural FairnessAmendment of PleadingsSuit for Possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for possession of land, which was rejected by the trial and appellate courts on the ground that the sale violated paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The core legal question was whether a court is justified in dismissing a suit based on a legal objection that was neither pleaded in the written statement nor framed as an issue, but raised for the first time during final arguments. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in entertaining this unpleaded objection. The court reaffirmed the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot set up a different case at a subsequent stage to surprise the opposing party. If a party intends to raise a material legal objection, it must be incorporated into the pleadings through a formal amendment. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision, and granted the defendant liberty to seek an amendment to the written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decide a case based on a legal objection not raised in the pleadings or issues?
  • Is it permissible for a party to raise a new legal objection for the first time during final arguments?
  • Must a party seek an amendment to the written statement to introduce a new legal objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Etc vs Muhammad Akram EtcK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 118 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs S.S.P., Faisalabad and 7 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2307 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-19
  writ jurisdictionregistration of FIRpolice dutyalternative remedyprivate complaintcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction from the High Court to compel police authorities to register a criminal case against private respondents based on a written complaint. The police had previously investigated the allegations and submitted a report stating that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claims, leading to a refusal to register the First Information Report. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should compel the police to register a case when the police have already investigated and found the allegations unsubstantiated, and whether an alternative remedy exists. The Court held that since the police had already inquired into the matter and found no substance in the allegations, issuing a direction for registration would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner possessed an adequate and appropriate alternative remedy by way of filing a private complaint before a competent court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for compelling police registration when other efficacious remedies are available.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the police to register a case after the police have already investigated and found the allegations unsubstantiated?
  • Is a private complaint considered an adequate alternative remedy for a person aggrieved by the police's refusal to register a criminal case?
  • Does the existence of an alternative remedy preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction for the registration of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Alias Cheena vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1294 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-02
  separate trialsconflicting judgmentsArms Ordinanceattempted murderleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, on the ground that the petitioner faced separate trials for the same occurrence—one for attempted murder under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and another for the possession of an unlicensed firearm. The petitioner argued that the separate trials could lead to conflicting judgments if he were acquitted in the attempted murder case despite evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the argument regarding the potential for conflicting judgments in separate trials for related offences has not been accepted by the superior courts of Pakistan or the Privy Council. The Court held that separate trials for distinct offences arising from the same occurrence are permissible and do not inherently create a legal conflict requiring the consolidation of proceedings or the quashing of a conviction. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be subjected to separate trials for an offence under the Arms Ordinance and an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code arising from the same occurrence?
  • Does the possibility of conflicting judgments in separate trials for related offences invalidate a conviction in one of those trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim and 10 others vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal1992 PLC 52 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 664 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1992 SCMR 2272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-05
  illegal gratificationtrap raidtainted currency notescorruptionofficial misconductappreciation of evidenceinheritance mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Patwari, challenged his conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to process an inheritance mutation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the recovery of tainted money and whether the appellant's inconsistent explanations regarding the recovery warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case, supported by the testimony of the raiding Magistrate and the Police Inspector, was credible. The Court observed that the appellant provided contradictory versions of the recovery—initially admitting he was counting the notes when apprehended, and later claiming they were picked up from the ground. Furthermore, the appellant's failure to perform his official duty of entering the mutation, despite being aware of the deceased's heirs, suggested an ulterior motive. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, concluding that the appellant was rightly convicted, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconsistent explanation by an accused regarding the recovery of tainted money undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for illegal gratification be sustained when the accused provides contradictory statements regarding the recovery of the bribe money?
  • Is the failure of a public servant to perform a routine official duty, such as entering a mutation, relevant evidence in a corruption case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 3 others vs Sindh Labour Court No, 3 and another1992 PLC 471 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamid vs M/s. Hashoo Steel Industries Ltd., Karachi and1992 PLC 1279 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafiz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2614 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-07
  statutory bailpost-arrest baildesperate criminaltrial delaySection 497 Cr.P.C.murder trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, charged with murder under Section 302, Section 201, and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought post-arrest bail invoking the third proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing a two-year delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail despite the brutal nature of the offense and whether the trial delay was attributable to the prosecution. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the third proviso is controlled by the fourth proviso, which excludes 'hardened, desperate, or dangerous' criminals from statutory bail benefits. Based on the brutal manner of the crime, characterized by eleven severe injuries, the court determined the petitioner acted in a desperate and reckless manner. Furthermore, the court found that the trial delay was caused by the absence of the petitioner's co-accused, not the prosecution. Consequently, the application was dismissed, establishing that the court may assess an accused's 'desperate' nature from the circumstances of the crime to deny statutory bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fourth proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclude hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals from the benefit of statutory bail?
  • Can a court determine if an accused is a 'desperate or dangerous criminal' based on the manner in which the crime was committed?
  • Is an accused entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial delay is caused by the absence of co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1686 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez Javaid vs The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Punjab And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-25
  deputationcivil servantunilateral recallmisconductdismissal from servicefixed-term deputationPunjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1975
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from the dismissal of the appellant, an Agricultural Assistant sent on deputation to a private firm for a fixed period of two years, for failing to comply with an arbitrary order recalling him before the expiry of that period. The core legal questions involve whether the government can unilaterally recall a civil servant from deputation before the expiry of a fixed term without valid cause or consultation, and whether a civil servant can be penalized for misconduct when unable to report back because the borrowing employer refuses to relieve him due to financial and operational involvements. The Supreme Court held that while the government may have the power to recall an officer on deputation, such power must be exercised rationally, in public interest, and in consultation or with the consent of the borrowing body, rather than arbitrarily. The court ruled that the appellant's dismissal was unjustified and contrary to law, as he could not abandon his duties with the borrowing firm without being relieved. The key principle laid down is that deputation terms for a fixed period cannot be repudiated arbitrarily, and the state must function rationally and responsibly without causing unconsidered financial harm to third parties or penalizing civil servants for circumstances beyond their control.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government unilaterally recall a civil servant from deputation before the expiry of a fixed period without valid cause in public interest?
  • Whether a civil servant can be penalized for misconduct for failing to rejoin his parent department when the borrowing employer refuses to relieve him due to financial involvement?
  • Does the power of the government to recall an officer on deputation require consultation or consent of the borrowing body?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib vs The State1992 SCMR 2331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-03
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencesudden quarrelmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, filed by leave to appeal, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his father-in-law. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the case presented extenuating circumstances warranting the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had acted in a sudden quarrel in the heat of the moment, provoked by the refusal of the deceased to send the appellant's pregnant wife with him, and noted mitigating factors including the appellant's young age and the infliction of a single stab wound without repetition. Consequently, the Court partly accepted the appeal, maintaining the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code but commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while adjusting the fine and declining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code should be commuted to life imprisonment when a murder is committed during a sudden quarrel in the heat of the moment?
  • Does the infliction of a single blow without repetition constitute an extenuating circumstance for sentencing purposes in a murder case?
  • Whether the refusal of a deceased to send the appellant's wife back with him can be considered sufficient provocation to mitigate the sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fikree and vs Muhammad Fikree and 3 others.PTCL 3992 CL. 322 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fikree and 3 others vs Fikree Development Corporation Ltd.1992 MLD 668 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-06
  Companies Ordinanceshare transferres judicatalachesmismanagementcorporate governanceSection 290
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, by shareholders alleging that the company’s directors engaged in unauthorized share transfers, conducted meetings without a proper quorum, and mismanaged funds through thriftless expenditure. The respondents contended that the petition was misconceived, time-barred, and barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court held that the grievances regarding share transfers had already been adjudicated in previous judicial applications, rendering the current claims barred by res judicata. Furthermore, the Court observed that the significant delay in challenging historical irregularities warranted dismissal on the grounds of laches. Regarding the allegations of financial mismanagement, the Court found the petitioners' reliance on the auditor's report insufficient to prove thriftless expenditure. The Court clarified that Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is designed to ensure company affairs are conducted in accordance with the law and the company's articles, rather than serving as a mechanism to resolve private inter-se disputes between shareholders. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, be invoked to settle private inter-se disputes between shareholders?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to petitions under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, when the subject matter has been previously adjudicated?
  • Can a petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, be dismissed on the grounds of laches due to significant delay in challenging historical irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Muhammad Nawaz and others1992 CLC 1346 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs Asghar Ali and others1992 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-26
  circumstantial evidenceleave to appealacquittalextra-judicial confessionlast seen evidencerecovery evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, last-seen testimony, and recovery of incriminating items. The High Court had rejected this evidence, citing contradictions with medical reports and lack of credibility in the witness accounts. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on a flawed appreciation of the evidence warranting Supreme Court interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning was sound and consistent with established legal principles. The Court affirmed that it is generally reluctant to interfere with acquittals, particularly in cases of circumstantial evidence, unless there is a grave and palpable misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. Finding no such error, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal based on circumstantial evidence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession reliable when it contradicts medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries?
  • Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the High Court has already acquitted the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil Khan vs Mst. Amir JanK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Textile Mills (Ltd.), Karachi vs Munawar Bakht and another1992 PLC 906 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq And 2 Others vs The State--1992 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncheatingcivil nature of disputeabuse of processcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a trial court. The applicants, accused of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, evidenced by pending civil litigation, and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when a prima facie case exists and the accused alleges the matter is civil. The Court held that the inherent power under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not an alternative to the ordinary course of criminal procedure and should be used sparingly. It determined that since there was prima facie evidence connecting the applicants to the crime, it would be premature to stifle the prosecution. The Court established that the mere existence of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings, and quashment is inappropriate where the allegations, if believed, constitute an offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a pending civil suit between the parties automatically bar the continuation of criminal proceedings?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings where a prima facie case is established?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses at the stage of a quashment application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fahim Ansari vs Messrs I.C.I. Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1992 PLC 1085 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 others1992 CLC 551 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chottey Khan vs Muhammad Munir Khan And 2 OtherPLD 1992 Karachi160 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bukhsh vs The Colony Assistant/Collector, Sargodha1992 CLC 561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs Murad Ali1992 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1191 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 160 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Sumera Shahzadi And 2 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-25
  matrimonial disputecompromise agreementfamily lawamicable settlementmaintenanceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Following the reservation of judgment, the parties reached an amicable settlement through a written compromise agreement facilitated by their respective counsel. The core legal question was whether the court could dispose of the pending litigation based on the terms of the settlement reached between the parties. The Supreme Court, observing that the compromise constituted a fair and workable arrangement for the parties and their children, accepted the terms. The Court held that the petition should be converted into an appeal and disposed of in accordance with the terms of the compromise, which included provisions regarding property transfer, maintenance payments, and the withdrawal of all pending litigation. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may exercise its jurisdiction to convert a petition into an appeal and dispose of the matter in terms of a mutually agreed-upon compromise when such an arrangement is deemed fair and conducive to an amicable family life.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and dispose of it based on a compromise agreement?
  • Is a compromise agreement between parties in a matrimonial dispute enforceable by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Manager, Madina Re-Rolling Steel Industries, Hyderabad , . (1992 PLC 459 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Abdul HamidK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases I00 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Talib vs Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region and 31992 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-20
  service lawmisconductdismissal from servicerecovery of lossnatural wastagedisciplinary proceedingsfinancial liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Foodgrains Inspector, challenged his dismissal from service and a recovery order for alleged misappropriation of wheat stocks and equipment. Following disciplinary proceedings, the Deputy Director initially reinstated the appellant but ordered a recovery of Rs 3,01,173.30. Upon appeal, the Director enhanced the penalty to dismissal and increased the recovery amount. The appellant's subsequent appeals to the Secretary and the Punjab Service Tribunal were unsuccessful. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contested the dismissal and the recovery order. The Court upheld the dismissal, finding it based on adequate grounds, specifically the appellant's failure to submit mandatory reports and the abnormal shortage of stocks under his charge. However, the Court set aside the recovery order regarding the wheat shortage. It held that the authorities failed to account for natural weight loss due to moisture, and erroneously calculated liability based on the Deputy Director's financial powers to write off losses rather than the appellant's actual negligence. The matter of recovery was remanded for a fresh determination of liability after notice to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary authority calculate an employee's financial liability for stock shortages based on the authority's own financial powers to write off losses?
  • Is an employee liable for the entire shortage of stock without accounting for natural factors like moisture loss?
  • Does the failure to submit mandatory reports and abnormal stock shortages constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Pathan vs Karachi Transport Corporation and another1992 PLC 1173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 454 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs The State And 3 Other1992 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11
  writ petitionunconditional withdrawalres judicatacompetence of petitionCode of Civil Proceduresuppression of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Lahore. The core legal question was whether a petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn an earlier writ petition challenging the same order without seeking permission to file a fresh one, is legally precluded from instituting a subsequent constitutional petition on the same subject matter. The Court held that the petition was incompetent. Relying on the principle that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to writ proceedings, the Court determined that under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaintiff who withdraws a suit or abandons a claim without leave to file a fresh one is barred from re-litigating the same matter. The Court observed that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in the previous petition and withdrew it unconditionally to avoid adverse judicial observations. Consequently, the Court established that an unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition precludes the filing of a fresh petition regarding the same subject matter, thereby dismissing the current petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition without permission to file a fresh one preclude the filing of a subsequent petition on the same subject matter?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to writ proceedings?
  • Can a petitioner who has withdrawn a previous writ petition unconditionally re-agitate the same matter through a new constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and 4 others vs United Bank Limited and another1992 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-03
  Article 2-Aself-executoryconstitutional importanceleave to appealconflicting decisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, addressing a question of constitutional importance regarding whether Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan is executory or non-self-executory. Noting a conflict of decisions between the High Court of Sindh and the Lahore High Court on this legal proposition, the Acting Chief Justice granted leave to appeal to settle the conflicting judicial interpretations. The court set security at Rs. 5,000 and declined to issue any interim order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 2-A is executory or non-self-executory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1618 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1992 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-13
  compromisecomposition of offencelife imprisonmentlegal heirsminor heirscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from two criminal appeals pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. An application for effecting a compromise was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased on behalf of one of the convicts, Muhammad Azam. The core legal question concerned whether a valid compromise/composition of the offence is permissible in a case involving a sentence of life imprisonment under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Ordinance No. I of 1991. The Court held that such a composition is possible with the permission of the Court. To ensure the genuineness, voluntariness, and propriety of the compromise, particularly safeguarding the interests of minor heirs, the Court ordered an inquiry to be conducted through the District Magistrate of Okara via an Executive Magistrate, requiring a report within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise can be effected with only one of the convicts in a murder case?
  • Is a composition of an offence permissible with the permission of the Court in cases involving life imprisonment under the amended laws?
  • How must the Court ascertain the genuineness and voluntariness of a compromise involving minor legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 398 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Mst. Zareena1992 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Sheikh vs Talib HussainK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 293 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Attiq vs President, Cantonment Board, Kohat Cantt. and 21992 SCMR 1508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-07
  leave to appealCantonment Board electionnomination papersrejection of nominationReturning Officerwrit jurisdictionAmeen
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a local election dispute regarding the nomination papers of respondent No. 3 for the Cantonment Board, Kohat. The petitioner had challenged the respondent's nomination on allegations that he kept a Cantonment Board employee as a domestic servant and improperly helped a female student obtain a scholarship, asserting that he failed to meet the character standard of being an Ameen. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, quashed the decisions of the Returning Officer and Board President, finding that the charges were unproven allegations rather than established facts, and remanded the matter. The Supreme Court reviewed the merits and observed that subsequent proceedings could not serve as determinative material for the Returning Officer at the time of rejection. Additionally, the petitioner failed to show any violation of statutory rules, trust, or moral standards regarding the scholarship. Finding no merit in the factual allegations, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Returning Officer reject nomination papers based on unestablished allegations rather than proven facts?
  • Can proceedings decided after the rejection of nomination papers be utilised as determinative material by a Returning Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ASLAMs vs Collector and another1992 CLC 851 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05
  revenue recordmutation cancellationcivil court decreebona fide purchaseradministrative reviewwrit jurisdictionbinding effect of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser of land, challenged the orders of the Collector and Additional Commissioner cancelling a mutation that had been attested in his favour. The petitioner had previously secured an ex parte civil court decree declaring his title to the land, which the revenue authorities subsequently ignored while cancelling the mutation on the grounds of alleged fraud in the original allotment. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities possess the jurisdiction to ignore or nullify a subsisting civil court decree through administrative review of a mutation. The Lahore High Court held that the respondents acted without lawful authority. The Court determined that once a mutation is sanctioned based on a valid civil court decree, revenue authorities cannot unilaterally review or cancel it to nullify the effect of that decree. The key principle laid down is that revenue authorities are bound by the findings of a competent civil court and cannot bypass or override a subsisting civil decree through administrative proceedings, as such actions constitute an exercise of authority in derogation of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Can revenue authorities unilaterally review and cancel a mutation that was sanctioned in compliance with a subsisting civil court decree?
  • Are revenue authorities bound to respect a civil court decree declaring title to land when processing mutations?
  • Does an administrative authority have the power to nullify the effect of a civil court decree through the review of a mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-26
  briberyconvictionleave to appealtainted moneyMagisterial raiddecoy witnessevidence appreciationbail cancellationdiscrepancies in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence for the offence of bribery, arising from a Magisterial raid where the petitioner was caught red-handed with tainted money. The core legal questions revolved around whether discrepancies in the accused's explanation for the recovery of tainted money or the absence of an immediate search of the complainant could vitiate the prosecution's case. The petitioner also contended that the standard of evidence appreciation in appeals against conviction should be similar to that in appeals against acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction. It held that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence, and the Magistrate's testimony was credible. The Court affirmed that direct evidence of criminal conversation between the accused and a decoy witness is not always necessary if the supervising Magistrate is satisfied. It further clarified that the standard and mode of appreciation of evidence differ significantly between cases where acquittal is sought to be set aside and those where conviction is challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Is direct evidence of criminal conversation between an accused and a decoy witness always necessary in bribery cases if the supervising Magistrate is satisfied?
  • Does the standard of evidence appreciation differ between appeals against conviction and appeals against acquittal?
  • Can discrepancies in an accused's explanation regarding the recovery of tainted money alone invalidate a prosecution's case?
  • Is the absence of an immediate search of the complainant at the scene of a bribery raid a fatal flaw for the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 461 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Syed.Ahmed Naeem. And 9 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-24
  Lambardarremand orderBoard of Revenueconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionrevenue authoritiesappointment of Lambardar
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Lambardari appointment dispute in Punjab. The Board of Revenue had issued an order remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits regarding the appointment of a Lambardar and the applicability of relevant rules following the deaths of original rival parties. The High Court, exercising its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199, set aside the Board of Revenue's remand order and adjudicated upon the legal controversies itself. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in interfering with a remand order issued by the Board of Revenue in Lambardari proceedings before the designated Revenue authorities had decided the underlying legal and factual questions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in interfering with the remand order prematurely. The Court established that Revenue authorities must first be allowed to decide relevant questions of fact and law during remand proceedings before such matters can be scrutinized under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in Constitutional writ jurisdiction with a remand order issued by the Board of Revenue before the Revenue authorities decide the underlying legal and factual issues?
  • At what stage may the High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to review proceedings relating to the appointment of a Lambardar by Revenue authorities?
  • Should the High Court adjudicate upon the merits of a Lambardari appointment while remand proceedings remain pending before the competent Revenue authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mahmood Ali And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-30
  civil imprisonmentcontempt of courtinjunction violationapologystatus quosui generis proceedingsbreach of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against a High Court judgment confirming an order passed by a learned Single Judge under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whereby the appellant's property was attached and he was committed to civil prison for one week for violating an interim injunction and status quo orders. The core legal questions involved whether an unconditional apology tendered at a late stage after contesting the case should purge contempt, whether proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) are strictly criminal in nature, and whether a contemnor can shift liability for violating a status quo order onto his employees. The Supreme Court held that an apology must be offered immediately and genuinely out of true repentance, and an apology tendered only after an unsuccessful contest and conviction does not entitle the contemnor to a discharge as of right. Furthermore, proceedings for breach of injunction are sui generis and not bound by strict criminal technicalities, and a principal is responsible for unauthorized constructions raised by employees in violation of a court order. The Supreme Court modified the sentence to detention till the rising of the court, conditional upon the appellant removing the offending structure within ten days.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unconditional apology tendered after an unsuccessful contest and conviction purge a party of the breach of a court order as a matter of right?
  • Do proceedings for the committal of a party for violating an injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 partake of a strictly criminal nature?
  • Whether a party can escape liability for violating a status quo order regarding construction by claiming the acts were committed by employees during the party's absence?
  • What factors should a court consider when deciding whether to accept an apology tendered by a contemner at an appellate stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Govt. of Punjab Etc.(K.L.R. 1992 Labour and Service Cases 232) · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs District Education Officer (Male), Sargodha And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 129) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Jabbar and others1992 CLC 1360 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 5 others vs Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarabad and 2 others1992 CLC 2148 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Chandi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Alias Pappu vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asiam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 832 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Sarwar And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Ismail And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Sikandar Jan and another1992 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Faqir Muhammad and another1992 CLC 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs District Manager, Karachi Transport1992 PLC 1121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Ali Zaman and others1992 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellbona fide purchaserburden of proofsubsequent transfereenotice of prior contractspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, wherein the appellant sought possession and cancellation of a subsequent mutation in favor of the respondents. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Peshawar High Court set aside the decree, citing the appellant's failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, observing that the appellant failed to prove the terms of the agreement or establish that the subsequent vendees had notice of the prior contract. The Court held that while a first vendee may enforce a contract against a subsequent transferee, the latter may defeat such a claim by proving they are a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement. The burden of proof initially rests on the subsequent transferee to prove good faith and lack of notice; once discharged, the onus shifts to the first purchaser to disprove these assertions. The appellant failed to discharge this burden, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on a subsequent transferee to prove they had no notice of a prior contract for sale?
  • Can a subsequent transferee defeat a claim for specific performance by proving they purchased the property for value in good faith without notice of the prior contract?
  • Is a statement on oath by a subsequent transferee denying knowledge of a prior transfer sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi vs Government of Punjab through Chief1992 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-18
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementcivil servantmisconductEnquiry OfficerAuthorised OfficerBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of the appellant, a Confidential Assistant in the Board of Revenue, who was compulsorily retired following allegations of suppressing and substituting an Annual Confidential Report of a Tehsildar. The appellant challenged the disciplinary proceedings, arguing that the Authority lacked the power to disagree with the Enquiry Officer and Authorised Officer, who had both exonerated him. The core legal question was whether the Authority is bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the recommendations of the Authorised Officer under the relevant disciplinary rules. The Supreme Court held that the Authority is not bound by such findings or recommendations. The Court interpreted Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, determining that the Authority retains the ultimate power to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should continue or conclude, regardless of the Authorised Officer's recommendations. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Authority's decision to proceed against the appellant, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the penalty of compulsory retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Authority bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the recommendations of the Authorised Officer in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the Authority have the power to disagree with the Authorised Officer's recommendation to drop disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Can an order of compulsory retirement be sustained if the Authority disagrees with an Enquiry Officer's finding of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs The State1992 MLD 74 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Five Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashnak and others vs Zinda (deceased) throuh his Legal1992 CLC 1598 · Board of Revenue · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs District Magistrate Sialkot and others1992 MLD 88 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Mirza vs Sufi Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others1992 PLC 1098 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad And Others vs Government of Punjab1992 P Cr. L J 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1992 SCMR 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-21
  circumstantial evidenceinterested witnessindependent witnessmurder convictionrecovery of weaponstandard of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the High Court's judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained after excluding the testimony of the deceased's brothers, who were deemed interested witnesses, given that the only independent witness, Rashid Ahmad, did not support the prosecution's version of the occurrence. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that while the testimony of the interested witnesses was unreliable, the independent witness's testimony was truthful and credible. The Court held that the conviction was sustainable based on circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of the blood-stained weapon at the appellant's instance, the appellant's presence at the scene, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the murder occurring in his own house, and his false conduct immediately following the incident. The Court affirmed that under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872, circumstantial evidence can suffice to prove guilt when direct evidence is unsatisfactory, provided the conclusion is so probable that a prudent man would act upon it.

  Questions settled

  • Can a murder conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence when direct eye-witness testimony is excluded?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain a murder occurring within his own house constitute a relevant circumstance against him?
  • How should the testimony of an independent witness be evaluated when it contradicts the prosecution's primary eye-witnesses?
  • Is the recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of the accused sufficient to support a conviction in the absence of reliable eye-witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Qasim Ali and 5 others1992 SCMR 1703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-20
  review petitionmisreading of recordappraisement of evidenceinterested witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against the consolidated judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18-8-1991, which had disposed of criminal appeals and resulted in the acquittal of certain respondents and the conviction of another. The core legal question concerns whether a review of the judgment is warranted on grounds of alleged misreading of the record regarding witness credibility and the appraisement of evidence. The Court held that although a slight misreading of evidence regarding the relationship between certain witnesses occurred, the interested character of the witness was nevertheless established through other admissions on record, and matters concerning the infliction of injuries and appraisement of evidence cannot be reopened in review. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, laying down the principle that the Court will not reappraise factual evidence in review where plausible conclusions have been drawn for the safe administration of criminal justice, and no general principle of law requires reconsideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judgment be reviewed on the ground of misreading of evidence if the ultimate conclusion remains sustainable on other material on record?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise the entire factual evidence in a review petition against a criminal judgment?
  • Is expert opinion on the nature of injuries decisive, or must the Court form an independent opinion based on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Muhammad Siddique1992 CLC 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and others vs Qasim Ali and others1992 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-18
  interested witnessmedical evidence conflictpost-mortem injuriesabscondencebenefit of doubtattempted murdercriminal appealocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprised three consolidated criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a Lahore High Court Division Bench judgment in a murder and attempted murder prosecution under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 PPC. The prosecution alleged two linked incidents involving firearms and dacoity/stabbing. The primary legal questions concerned the reliability of interested ocular witnesses, the effect of irreconcilable conflict between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, and whether convictions for stabbing could stand where injuries were potentially inflicted post-mortem. The Supreme Court held that where ocular evidence from interested and partisan witnesses is contradicted by medical evidence—specifically regarding the trajectory of gunshot wounds and identical overlapping stab wounds—it cannot be safely relied upon. The Court further observed that massive firearm damage caused instantaneous death, making subsequent stab wounds likely post-mortem, and that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction when primary evidence fails. Consequently, the Court upheld the primary shooter's conviction while acquitting the remaining co-accused on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon when contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained against accused persons attributed with inflicting stab wounds when the medical evidence suggests the injuries were post-mortem?
  • Whether abscondence of an accused by itself is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of credible primary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1992 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-15
  robberymurderocular testimonyinjured witnessescriminal appealSection 397 PPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 392, 397, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery and murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the defence's counter-version and alleged procedural lapses in the investigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the convictions under Sections 302 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but set aside the conviction under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, corroborated by the presence of injured co-accused at the crime scene, constitutes formidable evidence. Furthermore, it established that Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, being the graver offence involving robbery with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, subsumes the offence under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860; therefore, separate and concurrent convictions for both sections are legally impermissible. The Court rejected the appellant's counter-version as unsubstantiated and affirmed the trial court's reliance on the ocular and medical evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court record separate and concurrent convictions for robbery under Section 392 and robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the presence of injured co-accused at the scene of the crime provide corroboration to the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of injured eye-witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent recovery witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 318 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →