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.

• Sh. Liaquat Ali vs High Court, Lahore through Registrar and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 789 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sh. Imttaz Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1990 PLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq Butt vs The State1990 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaynon-capital offencecriminal procedurebail entitlementcustodial period
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being in custody for over one year following his arrest for possession of a large quantity of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates the release of an accused on bail if their trial for a non-capital offence has not concluded within one year, provided the delay was not caused by the accused. The Supreme Court observed that the trial had not concluded within the statutory period and that there was no evidence suggesting the delay was attributable to the petitioner's conduct, despite some adjournments requested by co-accused. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the statutory benefit of bail. The ratio establishes that where an accused has been detained for over a year for a non-capital offence and the delay in trial is not occasioned by the accused's own acts or omissions, the court is obligated to grant bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial has not concluded within one year?
  • Does the conduct of a co-accused in seeking adjournments preclude the petitioner from claiming the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must the court grant bail if the delay in trial is not occasioned by the act or omission of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Bashir Ahmad vs D.Ig. (Police) and another Superintendent of Police1990 SCMR 808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-23
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsminor penaltyformal inquiryprobationservice tribunalcompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, filed two petitions for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld disciplinary actions against him. The first matter concerned a penalty of censure imposed for negligence in failing to report a traffic accident to superior officers, despite the petitioner's claim that a formal inquiry was required. The second matter involved the refusal to place the petitioner on probation, based on his service record containing multiple recent punishments. The Supreme Court addressed whether an elaborate formal inquiry is mandatory for minor penalties and whether the Service Tribunal can interfere with the competent authority's assessment of an officer's fitness for probation. The Court held that for minor penalties, providing the grounds and an opportunity to explain is sufficient to meet the standard of fairness, and an elaborate inquiry is not required. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the assessment of an officer's fitness for probation is within the discretion of the competent authority, and the Tribunal cannot interfere absent a legal ground.

  Questions settled

  • Is an elaborate formal inquiry mandatory before imposing a minor penalty on a civil servant?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to interfere with the competent authority's decision regarding an officer's fitness for probation?
  • What constitutes the required standard of fairness when imposing a minor penalty on a police officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ahmad Akbar vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Finance Division and 2 others1990 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25
  civil servicemove-over benefitpay scaletechnical and professional categorydepartmental examinationservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment that denied him the benefit of 'move-over' to a higher pay scale. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having passed the Subordinate Accounts Service examination, qualified as a member of a 'technical and professional' category entitled to move-over benefits under government instructions issued on 1-7-1983. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, holding that the petitioner did not fall within the specified technical or professional categories. The Court reasoned that the Subordinate Accounts Service examination is merely a departmental examination designed to ensure internal efficiency and expertise, rather than a recognized technical or professional qualification available to the general public. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to meet the criteria for the claimed pay scale advancement. The principle laid down is that departmental examinations restricted to internal employees do not constitute 'technical or professional' qualifications for the purpose of claiming special pay scale benefits intended for specific professional categories.

  Questions settled

  • Does passing a departmental examination, such as the Subordinate Accounts Service examination, qualify a civil servant as belonging to a 'technical and professional' category for pay scale benefits?
  • Are departmental examinations restricted to internal employees considered technical or professional qualifications for the purpose of government move-over policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Razzaq vs Chairman, Town Committee, Kabirwala1990 PLC 616 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Qadeer vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar1990 SCMR 644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05
  dowry disputeconcurrent findings of factcivil revisionleave to appealprocedural technicalitiessubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by a husband challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court in a family dispute regarding the alleged misappropriation of dowry articles. The core legal question involves the sustainability of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding disputed factual assertions and technical procedural objections raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the case involved contradictory pleas on disputed questions of fact concluded concurrently against the petitioner by the lower courts, and that technical procedural objections without proof of prejudice do not warrant interference. The Court established the key principle that concurrent findings of fact on disputed matters will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless they suffer from an error of law or principle, and technicalities that cause no substantial prejudice cannot override substantial justice. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a family dispute regarding dowry?
  • Can technical procedural objections without proof of prejudice form the basis for setting aside concurrent findings of fact?
  • Does a defense of being 'Khana Damad' and shifting of dowry articles raise disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sevenup Company Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, Tokyo (Sony Corporation) Abdul Aziz Noor Muhammad Trading as Aziz Products vs Kohinoor Thread Ball Factory and 3 others Registrar of Trade Marks and anothers the Sevenup Company—1990 PLD Supreme Court 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-08
  trade markslikelihood of deceptionregistration of trade markstrade connectiongoodwillconsumer confusionintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved several appeals concerning the registration of identical trade marks ("7-Up" and "Sony") for goods different from those for which the marks were originally registered. The core legal question was whether such registration is permissible under the Trade Marks Act, particularly regarding the likelihood of deception or confusion under Section 8(a). The Supreme Court held that while there is no absolute monopoly on a trade mark across all goods, registration must be refused if there is a likelihood of deception or confusion. The Court dismissed appeals where the goods were entirely different (e.g., beverages vs. wool, soap, or sports goods), finding no likelihood of confusion. However, it allowed the appeal regarding "Pan Masala," finding that despite different classifications, the products shared similar trade channels and consumer bases, creating a real likelihood of confusion regarding the source. The Court established that trade mark protection is inherently linked to specific goods, and the test for refusal is the factual likelihood of deception, determined by considering marketing methods, consumer awareness, and the nature of the goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a trade mark grant an absolute monopoly over its use for all classes of goods?
  • What is the test for determining whether the registration of an identical trade mark for different goods should be refused under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act?
  • Is a trade connection or common field of activity a mandatory requirement to establish the likelihood of confusion in trade mark registration disputes?
  • Can the registration of a trade mark be refused if the goods are of a different description but likely to be associated with the original proprietor due to reputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior Superintendent of Police and others vs Waris Khan1990 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-19
  disciplinary proceedingspolice serviceshow-cause noticeformal inquiryservice tribunal jurisdictionreinstatementnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the dismissal of a police official, Waris Khan, who was terminated from service following allegations of failing to properly operate a check-post barrier and allowing subordinates to accept illegal gratification. The respondent challenged his dismissal before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which reinstated him on the grounds that the disciplinary authority failed to conduct a formal inquiry despite the existence of disputed factual allegations. The petitioners, representing the state, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent was not a civil servant and that the N.-W.F.P. Police Rules, 1975 barred judicial review of such orders. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal but refused to stay the Tribunal's order of reinstatement. The Court held that where an accused officer denies the allegations in a show-cause notice, a factual controversy arises that necessitates a formal inquiry with the officer's participation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the requirement for a proper inquiry before dismissal, allowing the department to proceed with disciplinary action from the point of the show-cause reply, provided the officer is first reinstated.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal inquiry mandatory when an accused officer denies the allegations contained in a show-cause notice?
  • Can a disciplinary authority dismiss a police officer without an inquiry when the facts underlying the charge are disputed?
  • Does the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against dismissal orders passed under the N.-W.F.P. Police Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and others vs Muhammad Iobal Khan and another1990 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-09
  service lawadverse remarksannual confidential reportservice tribunal jurisdictionleave to appealadministrative control
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had accepted an appeal filed by an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and expunged adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) for the year 1986. The respondent had initially received adverse remarks, which were upheld by the appellate authority, leading him to approach the Service Tribunal. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the opinion of the counter-signing authority, who had made the adverse entry based on available material. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Service Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in hearing the appeal and that the impugned judgment contained no exceptional errors warranting interference. The Court held that the Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate such service matters. Finding no question of public importance involved in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the Tribunal's decision to expunge the adverse remarks.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the recording of adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision to expunge adverse remarks where no question of public importance is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Seith Abdul Salam vs Malik Mahmood Hasan and 12 others1990 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-30
  inheritance rightsMuslim Personal Lawco-ownershipleave to appealpreliminary decreeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a Regular First Appeal, which had upheld a preliminary decree recognizing the respondent's right to inherit property from her deceased father. The petitioner, the respondent's brother, raised two primary contentions: first, that he was a co-sharer in the suit property, having jointly purchased it with his father; and second, that the respondent forfeited her inheritance rights because the petitioner had incurred significant expenses for their father's medical treatment and burial. The Supreme Court rejected the first plea, noting the petitioner's failure to provide any documentary evidence or cogent material to substantiate his claim of co-ownership, which had been concurrently decided against him by the lower courts. Regarding the second plea, the Court held that under Islamic law, a sister cannot be deprived of her inheritance share based on expenses incurred by her brothers on behalf of their father. Consequently, finding no merit in the contentions, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a brother deprive his sister of her inheritance share on the ground that he incurred expenses for their father's medical treatment and burial?
  • Is a claim of co-ownership in property valid without documentary evidence or cogent material to support it?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of the Punjab and 2 others vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala and 2 others1990 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30
  leave to appealworkmancivil servantservice terminationconvictionlachescriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an order granting leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petition sought to examine three specific questions of law. The first question concerned the classification of an 'Overseer' as either a 'Workman' or a 'Civil Servant', a distinction crucial for determining the applicable legal framework for employment disputes. The second question addressed whether a government employee must be retained in service even after being convicted and sentenced under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The third question related to the doctrine of laches, specifically whether the delay in filing the petition had been adequately explained to prevent the application of this equitable defense. The Court granted leave to appeal to thoroughly examine these points, directing that the matter be heard at an early date based on the existing record, with an option for parties to submit additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does an 'Overseer' fall into the category of 'Workman' or 'Civil Servant'?
  • Must an employee be kept in Government employment even after conviction and sentence under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Was the delay appropriately explained to avoid the application of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Muzammil Hussain and another1990 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25
  evacuee trust propertyreligious trustburden of proofsettlement authoritiesproperty inheritanceTikano
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a dispute regarding the status of property bearing City Survey No. D/1396 in Hyderabad, which the appellant, the Evacuee Trust Property Board, claimed was attached to a religious trust. The appellant challenged the transfer of this property to the respondent, contending it was evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether the appellant provided sufficient evidence to establish that the property was indeed a religious trust rather than private property subject to inheritance. The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the application, finding the evidence—specifically entries in the Property Register Card describing the property as a 'Tikano'—vague, inconclusive, and contradictory, as the document also cited inheritance as the source of title. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to substantiate its claim that the property was trust property. The judgment affirms the principle that mere descriptive entries in official records, when contradicted by evidence of private inheritance, are insufficient to establish the existence of a public religious trust.

  Questions settled

  • Is a property entry in a register describing it as a 'Tikano' sufficient evidence to establish it as a public religious trust?
  • Can property described as being subject to inheritance be simultaneously classified as trust property without further evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of property if the evidence is found to be vague and inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayphire Textile Mills Ltd. and 9 others vs Government of Sindh and others1990 PLD Karachi 402 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-28
  export taxRawangi Mahsoolinter-provincial movement of goodsintra-provincial export taxlegislative competenceDistrict Councilconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by various textile mills and manufacturing companies challenging the levy, assessment, and collection of export tax and 'Rawangi Mahsool' by District Council Dadu and the Government of Sindh. The core legal questions involved the legislative competence of provincial and local authorities to levy export taxes in light of the Federal Legislative List and Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which guarantees freedom of trade and commerce. The Court held that customs duties on exports abroad and sales taxes on goods imported and exported fall within the exclusive legislative competence of the Federation under entries 43 and 49 of the Federal Legislative List. Furthermore, export taxes on inter-provincial movement of goods violate Article 151 of the Constitution and are unconstitutional. However, the Court ruled that export taxes and 'Rawangi Mahsool' on intra-provincial movement of goods are constitutionally valid and saved by the Sindh Councils (Validation of Tax) Ordinance 1982 and the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979, and that the People's District Councils Export Rules 1976 continue to apply. Relief of restraint was granted against extra-provincial levies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Legislature has exclusive competence to levy export duties and sales taxes on goods exported from or imported into Pakistan?
  • Does an export tax or Rawangi Mahsool on the inter-provincial movement of goods violate Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are District Councils legally competent to levy export taxes or Rawangi Mahsool on the intra-provincial movement of goods within a province?
  • Do the People's District Councils Export Rules 1976 continue to apply under the savings provisions of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Sawar Ali vs Punjab Labour Court No. 1 and 3 others1990 PLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
• Saudi Arabian Airlines through its Country Manager for Pakistan vs Ruknuddin Shaikh and another1990 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
• Sattar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 653 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-05
  post-arrest bailarmed robberyprohibitory clauseyouthful offenderdiscretionary reliefHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court filed by two applicants, S. Tariq Ali and Nadir Raza, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 108 of 1989 registered at Police Station Malir City under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the serious nature of the armed robbery charge falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 mandates bail for a youthful offender. The court held that there was prima facie evidence connecting the applicants to the crime, including immediate arrest, identification by witnesses, and recovery of robbed money, and that the discretionary power under the first proviso to section 497(1) does not confer an absolute right to bail for minors in heinous offences. The High Court dismissed the bail application for both applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when an accused is charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause and prima facie evidence connects them to the crime?
  • Does the use of the word 'may' in the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the release of a youthful offender on bail mandatory?
  • Is a youthful offender accused of a heinous crime automatically entitled to the concession of bail based solely on their age?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Shah vs Muhammad Razaq and 4 others1990 MLD 386 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sarkar vs Muhammad Sadiq1990 P Cr. L J 784 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1973-11-17Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan Cheema vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others1990 SCMR 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07
  evacuee propertypermanent transfer deeddeclaratory suitconcurrent findingsleave to appealsettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his revision petition affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The dispute involved a house that was transferred as evacuee property to respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Authorities in 1968, followed by the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD). The petitioner's father was ejected, and the petitioner subsequently filed a declaratory suit claiming ownership based on an alleged purchase from a non-Muslim in 1947. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit and subsequent challenges due to a lack of proof regarding the confirmation of the sale by the Custodian of Evacuee Properties. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no legal infirmity, as the property was duly transferred as evacuee property and the petitioner failed to prove a valid confirmed purchase. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a declaratory suit regarding evacuee property is maintainable without proof of a confirmed sale by the Custodian of Evacuee Properties?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when no legal infirmity is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan And 118 Others vs Member, (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab.Lahore And 12 Other1990 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• Sardara vs Muhammad Hayat and others1990 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30
  Limitation Actcertified copiestime requisitecopying agencybarred by timetechnicalitycivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal addresses whether an appeal before the First Appellate Court was barred by time due to the manner in which certified copies of the judgment and decree were obtained. The core legal question involves the computation of the 'time requisite' for obtaining certified copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, specifically whether the period spent on a returned copy application at one copying agency can be excluded when a fresh application is subsequently filed at another location. The Supreme Court held that dismissing an appeal as time-barred under such circumstances, where the initial application was returned through no fault of the appellant and only a fresh application was subsequently submitted, places undue emphasis on a technicality. The key principle laid down is that procedural technicalities regarding the re-filing of copy applications should not defeat a litigant's right to appeal when the delay stems from administrative record transfers between copying agencies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period spent on a returned application for a certified copy at a copying agency can be excluded in computing the period of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does the failure to present the exact same returned copy application to a different copying agency, instead of filing a fresh application, render an appeal time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardara vs Khanqa H Pir Shah Badshah1990 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14
  adverse possessionJamabandiconcurrent findingsleave to appealproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court, all of which rejected the petitioners' claim of adverse possession over the disputed property. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners had successfully established the essential elements of adverse possession based on the evidence presented, specifically relying on the entries contained in the Jamabandi. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the entries in the Jamabandi did not support the petitioners' claim or advance their case in any manner. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the plea of adverse possession was not substantiated. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence establishing the requisite elements of adverse possession, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct and did not warrant interference. Leave to appeal was refused, thereby maintaining the status quo established by the lower courts regarding the property in dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of adverse possession be established solely on the basis of Jamabandi entries that do not support the claim?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding adverse possession when evidence is insufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Saleem Jan Khan vs Karo Khan and 2 others1990 MLD 2244 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir1990 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 23 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hassan Khan and 6 others vs Province of N.W.F.P.1990 MLD 1039 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Israr Hussain Baloch vs The Collector of Customs1990 MLD 1648 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Begum vs Mohammad Anwar Shah Etc.K.L.R.1990 Revenue Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar and others vs Shaukat Ali and others1990 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-07
  evacuee propertycivil court jurisdictionallotmentcustodian authoritiesdeclaration of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that certain property vested in them and was not evacuee property. The trial court, the district court, and the Lahore High Court had previously dismissed the suit, holding that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the civil court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the status of property treated as evacuee property, particularly when the property had been allotted to an allottee and possession delivered. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the petition lacked merit. The Court held that since the property was allotted as evacuee property and possession was delivered, the allotment remained unchallenged. The key principle laid down is that where property is treated as evacuee property and allotted, any person claiming an interest therein is legally required to approach the Custodian authorities for a declaration, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the status of property treated as evacuee property?
  • Is a person claiming an interest in property allotted as evacuee property required to approach the Custodian authorities for a declaration?
  • Can a civil suit be maintained to declare property as non-evacuee after it has been allotted and possession delivered to an allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar alias Sardara vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-26Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali alias Dara vs Mst. Sakeena Bibi and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdus Samad Khan vs Land Acquisition Collector1990 MLD 972 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Saqlain Hussain Naqvi vs S. Majeedullah, Managing Director, Sandoz1990 PLC 368 · Labour Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
• Santex Products vs Deputy Collector 1, Central Excise and Land CustomsPTCL 1990 CL. 386 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 466 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Cheema vs The State1990 SCMR 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionraiding partyrecovery of tainted moneyspecial leave to appealbail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution case was that the petitioner, a police official, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant for not opposing a bail application and for releasing stored cement. A raiding party organized by the Anti-Corruption Authorities successfully apprehended the petitioner, and tainted currency notes were recovered after he threw them on the ground upon the Magistrate disclosing his identity. The core legal question pertained to the reliability of the recovery of tainted money and whether the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were in accordance with law and established legal dicta, noting that the recovery from the ground immediately after the raid sufficiently established guilt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of tainted currency notes from the ground after a raid constitutes valid proof of acceptance of illegal gratification?
  • Whether the absence of overheard conversation between the accused and the complainant vitiates a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and others vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1990 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15
  leave to appealocular testimonysentence enhancementunlawful assemblymurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convictions of six petitioners for murder and attempted murder but modified their sentences. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the killing of two individuals, allegedly in retaliation for a prior murder. The High Court had upheld the convictions based on ocular testimony but reduced the death sentences of three petitioners to life imprisonment and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the presence and credibility of eye-witnesses and whether the sentencing discretion was exercised in accordance with legal principles. The Supreme Court, upon hearing arguments regarding the alleged doubtful presence of witnesses and the appropriateness of the sentences, granted leave to appeal in both petitions, determining that the contentions raised by both the convicted petitioners and the complainant party require further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a witness who was a co-accused in a prior case render their testimony inherently doubtful in a subsequent murder trial?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment solely based on the motive of revenge for a prior murder?
  • Is it legally sustainable to maintain convictions based on ocular testimony when the recovery evidence is rejected by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanam Jan Khan vs Mst. Noor Begum and 7 others1990 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-10
  succession certificatejoint bank accountIslamic law of inheritancedowerdisputed questions of factconsent order
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court relating to the grant of a succession certificate concerning a joint bank account held by a husband and wife, payable to either or survivor. After the husband's death, his heirs claimed their shares according to Islamic law of inheritance, while the widow claimed exclusive right to the amount, partly on the ground that it was in lieu of her dower. The Civil Judge granted the certificate to the appellant to the extent of an assumed Islamic share, but the High Court set it aside, holding that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and law and should be tried as a suit. Upon appeal before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a settlement during the hearing. The Supreme Court accordingly disposed of and partly allowed the appeal in terms of the agreed distribution of the bank amount and profits among the widow, appellant, and other respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a succession certificate dispute involving a joint bank account and rival claims based on inheritance and dower should be decided as a regular suit when complex questions of fact and law arise?
  • Can an appellate court dispose of an appeal regarding the grant of a succession certificate on the basis of a compromise reached between the contesting parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Samia Akbar vs Muhammad Zubair and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-20
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagekhulareturn of benefitsexecution of decreefamily court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged orders of the Family Court and Additional District Judge regarding the execution of a decree for the return of benefits in a khula dissolution of marriage case. The petitioner contended that the direction to return benefits only created a civil liability enforceable solely through a separate civil suit rather than execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether a Family Court's direction for the return of benefits as a condition of khula can be enforced through execution proceedings by the Family Court itself. The Lahore High Court held that the determination of benefits to be returned is an integral part of the Family Court's decision and decree, and under sections 5, 12, and 13 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, such monetary directions are fully executable by the Family Court, preventing multiplicity of suits. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the direction for the return of benefits in a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is executable by the Family Court?
  • Does the non-return of benefits invalidate the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula?
  • Must a husband file a separate civil suit to recover benefits determined by the Family Court in a khula decree?
  • Do provisions relating to payment of money under the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964 apply to decrees directing the return of benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Samandar vs Abdur Rahim And 3 Other1990 CLC 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
• Samandar Khan and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21
  criminal appealsentence reductionrigorous imprisonmentsentencing guidelinesbenefit of section 382-B
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the sentence imposed on the appellants. While the appellants initially sought to raise weighty legal questions previously addressed by the Supreme Court and the Federal Shariat Court, counsel for the appellants ultimately abandoned these arguments, choosing not to contest the conviction itself. Instead, the appellants prayed for a reduction in the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, citing precedents where similar offences resulted in a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, and requested the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate-General, could not provide any distinguishing factors justifying the harsher ten-year sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from ten years to five years and granting the appellants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while maintaining the conviction and other aspects of the original order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment be reduced to five years when precedents for similar offences support the lesser term?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Nasir vs Khalid Mehmood and others1990 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-17
  bail cancellationmurdersulfuric acid burnsextrajudicial confessionexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition arising from an appeal against the grant of bail to respondent Khalid Mehmood by the Lahore High Court. The respondent, along with others, stood trial before the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, for offences under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Mst. Abida Parveen through sulphuric acid burns. The Sessions Judge had initially refused bail, but the High Court granted it. The complainant petitioned the Supreme Court for bail cancellation, and leave was granted alongside the issuance of non-bailable warrants. During the appeal proceedings, counsel for both parties agreed that since the trial had already commenced and evidence was being recorded, the accused should remain in custody while the trial is expedited. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by maintaining the custody of the respondent and directing the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, granting liberty to the respondent to apply for bail afresh before the trial court if the timeline is not met.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted by the High Court can be disposed of by directing the trial court to conclude the ongoing trial within a specified timeframe?
  • Can an accused apply for bail afresh if the trial court fails to conclude the trial within the stipulated period ordered by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Jamila Latif1990 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-06
  evictiondefault in rentbona fide personal needSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceconcurrent findingspugreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against judgments of the Sindh High Court which dismissed the petitioner's appeals against eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord's eviction petitions under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 were barred by separate proceedings under section 14(2), whether the unpleaded defense of pugree could be raised, and whether concurrent findings regarding default in rent payment and bona fide personal need were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that proceedings under section 14 and section 15 of the Ordinance constitute separate causes of action and do not bar each other, that unpleaded matters such as pugree cannot be raised for the first time, and that concurrent findings of fact regarding default and personal need warrant no interference. The key principle laid down is that the simultaneous or prior pursuit of eviction under section 14 does not preclude a landlord from seeking eviction on independent grounds under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an eviction application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 bar the landlord from filing or pursuing another eviction application under section 15 of the said Ordinance?
  • Can a tenant raise the plea of having paid pugree when the same was not pleaded in the rental agreements or before the Rent Controller?
  • What is the prescribed timeframe for the payment of rent under the tenancy agreements and the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to avoid default?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding default in rent and bona fide personal need open to interference by the Supreme Court without showing legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmad vs Central Board of Revenue and 2 othersPTCL 1990 CL. 890 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
• Salat vs Ahmed alias Ahma and another1990 MLD 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Salah-Ud-Din vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali Shah vs The State1990 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali Shah vs Karachi Transport Corporation and 2 others1990 PLC 102 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-29Read full judgment →
• Sajwar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs Superintendent, Darul Aman, Multan and others1990 P Cr. L J 791 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Khan and 126 others vs Muhammad Hanif Siddiqui and 31990 MLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-22
  cooperative societiesmembership disputejurisdiction of civil courtrejection of plaintsociety electionsbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order rejecting the appellants' plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit seeking a declaration of membership and the right to contest elections in a housing society. The core legal question was whether a dispute regarding membership status of a cooperative society falls within the scope of 'business' under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 70-A of the same Act. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute concerning whether a person is or was a member of a society is expressly covered by Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, and consequently, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under Section 70-A. The key principle laid down is that disputes touching the membership and elections of a cooperative society must be referred to the Registrar under Section 54, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain such suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding membership status in a cooperative society fall under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  • Is the jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred under Section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 in disputes touching the business of a cooperative society?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on the averments made in the plaint when the court's jurisdiction is ousted by statute?
  • Does a dispute concerning the election of officers form part of the business of a cooperative society under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs Mahmud Hussain and 23 others1990 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13
  leave to appealrejection of plaintcourt-fee deficiencyregular second appealsuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal, which had challenged the rejection of a plaint in a suit for possession due to a deficiency in court-fee. The core legal question concerns the validity of rejecting a plaint for insufficient court-fee in light of established precedent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner and to consider the effect and application of the precedent established in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289). The Court held that leave should be granted to thoroughly review these legal questions regarding plaint rejection and court-fee deficiencies, directing the parties to prepare the appeal on the present record with essential documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaint can be rejected solely on account of a deficiency in court-fee?
  • What is the effect of the judgment in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289) on cases involving deficient court-fees?
  Read full judgment →
• Saint Peter High School, Gujranwala vs Assistant Director (Field1990 PLC 244 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
• Sain Akhtar vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others1990 MLD 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-14Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan vs The State1990 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  self-defenceright of private defencecriminal appealappreciation of evidenceconvictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Saifullah Khan, was convicted by the trial court, and his conviction and sentence were maintained by the High Court, while his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal issue concerns the High Court's inconsistent findings: while the High Court explicitly accepted the defence version—which posited that the petitioner acted in self-defence after an altercation regarding stray cattle—it nonetheless upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence. The petitioner contends that once the High Court accepted the defence version as more probable, the conviction became legally unsustainable as the act was committed in the exercise of the right of private defence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner acted in the exercise of his right of self-defence, given the High Court's factual findings. The matter focuses on the legal consequence of accepting a defence version that establishes self-defence while simultaneously maintaining a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained if the court accepts the defence version that the accused acted in self-defence?
  • Does the acceptance of a defence version regarding an altercation over cattle entitle an accused to the right of private defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah and others vs Tariq Hussain and others1990 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06
  ad hoc appointmenttemporary employmentservice lawleave to appealappointing authorityquota system
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Balochistan High Court regarding the status of ad hoc Naib-Tehsildars. The respondents were appointed on a purely temporary basis, subject to clearance by the Divisional Selection Committee. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner, as the appointing authority, acted in excess of authority by advertising these posts for open competition, thereby requiring the ad hoc appointees to re-apply and compete as fresh candidates. The High Court had ruled that the advertisement was unlawful, reasoning that the appointees had not been given the opportunity for committee clearance and that the new conditions, such as age limits and competitive testing, would unfairly jeopardize their employment. The Supreme Court, noting the competing claims—including the rights of subordinate service employees to a 50% quota under the Balochistan Naib-Tehsildari Rules, 1980, and the Commissioner's argument regarding the temporary nature of the appointments—granted leave to appeal. The Court determined that these issues regarding the scope of authority and the rights of temporary appointees required further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointing authority advertise posts currently held by ad hoc employees for open competition?
  • Do ad hoc appointees have a vested right to permanent status despite the temporary nature of their initial appointment?
  • Does the requirement for competitive testing for existing ad hoc posts constitute an excess of authority by the appointing officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Haq Hashmi vs The Government of SindhK.L.R.1990 Labour & Service Cases 271 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman vs Bashir Ahmad alias Bashira and another1990 P Cr. L J 931 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Saida and 4 others vs Kala and 2 others1990 MLD 1189 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
• Said Rasool vs Muhammad Fazil and another1990 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-30
  unsound mindschizophreniamental incapacitypreliminary inquiryburden of proofcriminal trial procedurepostponement of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which declared the accused a chronic schizophrenic, incapable of making his defense, and consequently postponed his murder trial while releasing him on security. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the determination of an accused's mental unsoundness. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally flawed because the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry that allowed both the prosecution and the defense to lead evidence and rebut opposing claims. The Court emphasized that when a trial court doubts an accused's sanity, it must treat the determination of that fact as a preliminary stage of the trial. The key principle laid down is that the inquiry into an accused's mental capacity is mandatory and compulsory; it requires the court to provide both parties a full and fair opportunity to produce evidence, with the prosecution generally bearing the initial burden to establish the accused's sanity.

  Questions settled

  • Is the inquiry into an accused's unsoundness of mind under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a mandatory preliminary stage of the trial?
  • Does the prosecution have the right to lead evidence to rebut a medical report claiming an accused is of unsound mind?
  • Must a court provide both the prosecution and the defense an opportunity to lead evidence during an inquiry into an accused's mental capacity to stand trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Qayyum vs Ghani Shah and another1990 P Cr. L J 428 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner/1990 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31
  evacuee propertyland allotmentforged claimpreferential claimlacheswrit petitionmukhbari
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning the cancellation of land allotments previously confirmed in favor of an allottee, Muhammad Shafi. The petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers for value of a portion of this land, challenged the cancellation, which had been initiated following an informer's report (Mukhbari) alleging the original claim was forged and bogus. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioners possessed a statutory right to purchase the land under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act of 1975, particularly after the original allotment was cancelled due to fraud. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had delayed filing their writ petition for seven years following the cancellation order. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the vendees held no preferential claim over the informer, citing established precedent. Consequently, the Court found no valid grounds to grant leave to appeal, determining that the petitioners' claims were legally untenable given the fraudulent nature of the original allotment and the significant delay in seeking judicial redress. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Do subsequent purchasers for value have a preferential claim over an informer regarding land allotments cancelled due to fraud?
  • Does a seven-year delay in filing a writ petition against a cancellation order constitute laches?
  • Can purchasers of land allotted through a forged claim assert a right to purchase under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad and another vs Karam Dad and another1990 MLD 168 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Said Amir vs The State1990 PLD Federal Shariat Court 26 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-11-16
  Prohibition OrderFATAFrontier Crimes RegulationFederal Shariat Courtrevisional jurisdictionHudood lawsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Said Amir, challenged his conviction and six-year sentence for heroin possession under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which was handed down by the Political Agent, Khyber, following a trial by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR). His revision petition was earlier dismissed by the Commissioner FCR. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), whether it overrides the FCR, and the proper forum for appeal and revision. The Federal Shariat Court held that the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 extends to FATA by its own terms and overrides the FCR, that trials under the Order must be conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that appeals lie to the Federal Shariat Court, and that the Court possesses exclusive revisional jurisdiction in Hudood cases under Article 203-DD of the Constitution. The Court accepted the revision, set aside the lower judgments, and remanded the case for retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 extend in its application to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas?
  • Does the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 override the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation?
  • Which forum has the appellate jurisdiction against a conviction and sentence exceeding two years under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • What is the extent of the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood cases under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan vs Ahmad Khan EtcKX.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 134 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sahib and 3 others vs The STATEOpponent1990 MLD 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-01
  quashment of proceedingscognizance of offencepolice reportcomplaintLand Reforms Regulationcriminal procedurejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court via a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicants before the Resident Magistrate, Kandiaro, for an alleged offence under paragraph 30 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The core legal question addressed is whether a court can take cognizance of an offence under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 upon a police report rather than a written complaint authorized by the Commission. The Court held that paragraph 31 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 explicitly bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence except upon a written complaint made by order of or under the authority of the Commission, and a police report does not constitute a valid complaint under the law. Consequently, taking cognizance on a police report is illegal and renders the entire trial void ab initio. The petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 upon a police report?
  • Does a police report constitute a complaint as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the effect of a court taking cognizance of an offence on a police report when the statute requires a written complaint by the Commission?
  • How does the mode of taking cognizance on a complaint differ from taking cognizance on a police report regarding the liberty of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Ahmad and another vs The State1990 MLD 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Safia Begum vs The District Magistrate, Faisalablad1990 CLC 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Safdar vs Dildar and others1990 SCMR 1123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-16
  bail cancellationplea of alibiquashment of proceedingsinvestigating officercriminal trialocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside a Magistrate's order releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, accused of an attempt on the complainant's life, had previously been denied bail by the Sessions Court and the High Court, and his plea of alibi had been rejected. Subsequently, a new investigating officer accepted the alibi and sought the petitioner's release, which the Magistrate granted. The High Court, acting upon the complainant's petition, quashed the Magistrate's order and directed the petitioner to face trial. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order releasing the accused on bail based on a plea of alibi that had been previously rejected by superior courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's order was legally correct in requiring the plea of alibi to be thrashed out at trial, especially given the supporting ocular and medical evidence, and that the High Court's intervention was justified.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court set aside a Magistrate's order granting bail under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a plea of alibi, once rejected by the High Court, a sufficient ground for a Magistrate to release an accused on bail during the investigation stage?
  • Can an order passed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be upheld if the court could have exercised powers under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain vs S.P., Khushab and others1990 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-23
  service appealmisconductpolice dutydisciplinary proceedingsleave to appealF.I.R. registrationPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary action taken against a police officer, Safdar Hussain. The petitioner, an S.H.O., was charged with misconduct for failing to register an F.I.R. and issue a medical examination docket after a minor girl was raped, despite being approached by complainants. The petitioner contended he was unwell at the time, shifting responsibility to the Additional S.H.O. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the petitioner's culpability and the validity of the disciplinary proceedings were sustainable. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that evidence established the petitioner was present and capable of performing his duties, as evidenced by his activities the following morning. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to assist the complainant constituted misconduct and that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that factual findings by a service tribunal regarding administrative misconduct, when supported by evidence, are generally not subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer can be held liable for misconduct for failing to register an F.I.R. and issue a medical docket when approached by complainants?
  • Does the illness of a public servant absolve them of official duties if evidence suggests they were capable of performing other tasks shortly thereafter?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali And 2 Others vs Muhammad Afzal1990 CLC 177 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Safar Ali vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 3 others1990 PLC 732 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ud Din vs Secretary to Government of N. W.F.P.1990 CLC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-08
  constitutional petitionservice lawpromotionbasic pay scalediscriminationequality before lawcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a Field Assistant promoted to Agriculture Officer B Grade, challenging the departmental order placing him in Basic Pay Scale 9 (BPS-9) instead of Basic Pay Scale 16 (BPS-16), which was granted to initially recruited Agriculture Officers and other similarly situated promotees. The core legal question was whether denying BPS-16 to the promotee Agriculture Officer while granting it to others performing identical duties, based on a restrictive departmental rule note, violated the principle of equality before the law. The Peshawar High Court held that treating civil servants of the same class arbitrarily and discriminatorily is hit by the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court ruled that the petitioner, like his colleagues in previous identical writ petitions, was entitled to BPS-16, setting aside the discriminatory departmental placement and allowing the petition with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether placing promoted Agriculture Officers in a lower pay scale than direct recruits holding the same rank constitutes unlawful discrimination?
  • Does a departmental recruitment rule note that singles out promotees for inferior pay scales violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to parity in pay scales when performing identical duties and sharing the same responsibilities as colleagues in the same department?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Mahmood vs Halima Bai1990 MLD 1789 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar and others vs Matloob and others1990 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  culpable homicideleave to appealsentence enhancementacquittalcompensationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against convictions and acquittals in a culpable homicide case involving multiple deaths and injuries. The Supreme Court addressed whether leave should be granted to challenge the acquittal of certain respondents and whether the sentences awarded to the convicted accused under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, required enhancement. The Court held that the arguments regarding contradictions in the impugned judgment were insufficient to set aside the acquittal of the respondents, and thus dismissed the petition against them. However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the convicted accused to examine the adequacy of the sentences imposed and the potential imposition of heavy fines or compensation. The Court explicitly rejected the prayer to convert the conviction to one under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle established is that while appellate courts are hesitant to interfere with acquittals based on minor contradictions, they retain the authority to review the adequacy of sentences and compensation in cases of culpable homicide.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal maintainable based on alleged contradictions in the impugned judgment regarding the acts of the accused?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the limited purpose of examining the adequacy of a sentence and the imposition of compensation?
  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while simultaneously rejecting a request to convert the conviction to Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-16Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 773 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-09Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Khan and 33 others vs Messrs National Motors Ltd.1990 PLC 763 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and 3 others vs Tanveer Ahmad and another1990 MLD 788 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-10
  civil revisionwithdrawal of suitres judicatapartition suitCode of Civil Procedurependency of suitfresh suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute where the respondent filed a second suit for partition and rendition of accounts while a first suit for partition of the same property was still pending. The respondent subsequently withdrew the first suit unconditionally without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. The petitioners sought dismissal of the second suit, arguing that the withdrawal of the first suit barred the second suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) and Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, invoking the principle that no one should be vexed twice for the same cause of action. The Court addressed whether a second suit, instituted during the pendency of a first suit, is barred if the first suit is later withdrawn unconditionally. Relying on the precedent in Ghulam Nabi v. Seth Muhammad Yaqoob (PLD 1983 SC 344), the Court held that the bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) applies only to suits instituted after the withdrawal of a prior suit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, ruling that a suit filed while the first was pending is not precluded by the subsequent withdrawal of the first.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a first suit bar a second suit that was already pending at the time of such withdrawal?
  • Does the bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a suit instituted before the withdrawal of a previous suit?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a second suit for the same relief if it was filed during the pendency of an earlier suit that was subsequently withdrawn?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadoro vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21
  post-arrest bailsuccessive bail applicationsplea of alibiconcurrent jurisdictionrevisional powerssubordinate court compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, to entertain a plea of alibi raised by the applicant in successive bail applications concerning offenses under sections 365, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a subordinate court can refuse to consider a new ground, such as alibi, permitted by a higher court pursuant to its revisional or concurrent jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the rule against successive bail applications applies only to the court where the application is made, and that higher forums can permit new grounds to be raised. The Court laid down that subordinate courts are bound to comply with the directions of higher courts and must consider new grounds permitted by them, rather than rejecting them on the technicality of not being raised in the first instance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disposal of a bail application on merits is foreclosed merely because a subsequent bail application is moved on the ground of statutory delay?
  • Does the rule restricting successive bail applications on grounds available earlier apply to higher forums in the judicial hierarchy?
  • Is a subordinate court bound to comply with directions of a higher court permitting the agitation of a new ground of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Muhammad vs Madad Ali and 2 others1990 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-03
  leave to appealsuit for declarationperpetual injunctionmutationconcurrent findings of factcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendant side against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which arose from a decree passed in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness and effectiveness of a disputed mutation (Issue No. 7) and argued that the mutation order should have been given some evidentiary effect. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioner's counsel conceded that the disputed mutation had no binding effect on the respondents' rights. Upon reviewing the facts and appreciation of evidence, the Court found no legal or factual error in the concurrent findings rendered by the lower courts against the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a mutation can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any legal error?
  • Does a disputed mutation order have a binding effect on the rights of the plaintiffs when its genuineness is successfully challenged in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain Qureshi vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 306 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and 2 others Bakhsha vs The State Sadiq and others1990 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12
  free fightvicarious liabilitybenefit of doubtcriminal appealculpabilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction of three appellants for the killing of a deceased and causing injuries to prosecution witnesses during an altercation. The trial court, having determined the incident was a 'free fight' where both parties were prepared for conflict, convicted the appellants under Section 304, Part II and Section 324, read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without apportioning specific culpability. The High Court upheld these convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that both sides sustained multiple injuries, including grievous ones, and there was no specific attribution of the fatal blow or specific injuries to any individual appellant. The Court held that in a 'free fight' scenario where individual roles cannot be determined, the rule of vicarious liability under Section 34 cannot be invoked to sustain convictions. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions, and acquitted them. A separate petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can the rule of vicarious liability be invoked in a case of a free fight where individual roles are not established?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the court fails to apportion specific culpability among accused persons in a free fight?
  • Does the absence of specific attribution for fatal injuries entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt in a free fight scenario?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaruz Zaman vs The State1990 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-24
  leave to appealmurderbenefit of the doubtco-accused acquittalocular testimonyappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a convict against the High Court's dismissal of his appeal, which had upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions involved whether the acquittal of two co-accused on the basis of a benefit of the doubt should lead to the disbelief of eye-witness testimony against the petitioner, and whether the failure of the investigating officer to obtain and produce ballistic expert reports regarding recovered weapons and empties undermines the prosecution case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the acquittal of co-accused due to a general allegation and benefit of the doubt does not falsify the entire prosecution case or discredit eye-witnesses against the remaining accused, as established in prior jurisprudence. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' appraisal of the evidence, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that the benefit of the doubt extended to co-accused does not automatically react to benefit a principal offender where reliable ocular testimony exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the extension of the benefit of the doubt automatically discredit eye-witness testimony against the remaining petitioner?
  • Whether the failure of an investigating officer to produce ballistic expert reports vitiates an otherwise reliable conviction for murder?
  • Can the acquittal of co-accused with general allegations react to the question of guilt of the principal accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabz Ali Khan And Others vs Sarwar Khan And Other1990 CLC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Sabir Zameer Siddiqi vs Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 491 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain Etc. vs Province of Sindh and AnotherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 87 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sabir and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1267(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-07Read full judgment →
• Sa. Zubair vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad1990 PLC (C.S.) 149 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
• Sa. Hafeez vs A.B.K. Hameedi1990 MLD 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
• S.M. Saleem vs Deputy Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs Etc.PTCL1990 CL. 335 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-14Read full judgment →
• S.M. Saleem vs Deputy Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs and another1990 PTD 184 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• S.K. Masood And 3 Others vs Special Committee Through Member, Board1990 CLC 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06
  Constitutional petitionSettlement lawsEvacuee propertyForged auctionDeed of associationProvisional Transfer OrderUnclean handsJurisdiction over fabricated records
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the order dated 10-7-1975 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which held that transfer documents and auction proceedings regarding the disputed evacuee plot in favour of the petitioners were forged and fabricated. The core legal questions were whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to scrutinize and cancel forged or fabricated records after the repeal of evacuee laws under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and whether petitioners with unclean hands can claim discretionary constitutional relief. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of fraud regarding the auction bid sheet and deed of association. The Court held that the custodian of a record is the best judge to determine its veracity and genuineness, possessing inherent power to examine fabrication within its own record. Furthermore, extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate fraud or retain ill-gotten gains.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Settlement Authority or record custodian possess jurisdiction to examine and determine questions of forgery and fabrication within its own records notwithstanding the repeal of settlement laws?
  • Can extraordinary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be exercised in favour of a party seeking to retain ill-gotten gains through forged documents?
  • Are Settlement Authorities competent to receive balance auction price deposits after the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 when the matter is not a pending case under Section 2(2)?
  Read full judgment →
• S.H. Malik vs Additional District Judge, and 2 others1990 MLD 1924 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
• S. Zahir Hussain vs The District Manager, Karachi Transport1990 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• S. Sultan Ali Jeoffrey, vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1990 MLD 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• S. Shakir Ali Pirzada vs Messrs Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Ltd.1990 PLC 573 · Labour Court · 1988-01-23Read full judgment →
• S. Dildar Ali vs United Bank Ltd. and another1990 PLC 280 · Labour Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →