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.

• S. Amir Haider Zaidi vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and another1990 PLC 790 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
• S. Abu Saeed vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary to the Government of N.W.F.P., Education Department, Peshawar and another1990 SCMR 1623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-18
  seniority disputeservice lawante-dating promotionreversionnatural justicedirect recruits vs promoteesquota vacancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees to Grade-18 in the Education Department of N.W.F.P. Following a previous Supreme Court decision directing the resettlement of seniority based on promotion quotas, the Government ante-dated the promotees' seniority, causing the appellants (direct recruits) to lose seniority and consequently be reverted from Grade-19 to Grade-18. The appellants challenged this, arguing that the ante-dating was improper and that their reversion violated natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the ante-dating of promotions to the date of available vacancies was consistent with the previous inter partes judgment and the established service rules. Regarding the reversion, the Court held that because the appellants' initial promotion to Grade-19 was based on an incorrect seniority position, it was not regular. Consequently, the reversion was a necessary administrative consequence of implementing the Supreme Court's prior judgment, and thus, the principles of natural justice, such as the requirement for a show-cause notice, were not applicable in this specific context of implementing a judicial mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a promotion be ante-dated to the date a vacancy becomes available within the promotion quota?
  • Is a show-cause notice required when a civil servant is reverted as a direct consequence of implementing a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Does a promotion made on the basis of an incorrect seniority list constitute a regular promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustom Khan and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-27Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali Khan vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Lahore and others1990 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-23
  service lawnationalized banksstatutory rulesconstitutional petitionunauthorized absencetermination of employmentvoluntary retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Constitution Petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the termination of the petitioner's employment as an officer of the Allied Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner, having absented himself from duty without sanctioned leave, sought voluntary retirement, which was not processed before his termination for unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's employment was governed by statutory rules, thereby allowing for judicial review of his termination under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's employment was not statutory in nature and that the bank's Staff Rules did not qualify as statutory rules. Consequently, the Court found no violation of law or statutory provisions in the termination order. The key principle laid down is that employment in nationalized banks, despite the Banks Nationalization Act 1974, does not automatically confer statutory status upon the terms and conditions of service or the internal Staff Rules of such institutions, thereby limiting the scope of constitutional petitions regarding service disputes in this context.

  Questions settled

  • Does the employment of an officer in a nationalized bank constitute statutory employment?
  • Do the Staff Rules of a nationalized bank qualify as statutory rules for the purpose of judicial review?
  • Can a termination order based on unauthorized absence be challenged via a Constitution Petition if the employment is not governed by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Rozi Muhammad vs Haji Gul Muhammad and another1990 SCMR 1265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-26
  pre-emptiontenantlesseeretrospective operationLand Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115)superior right of pre-emptioncontiguity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court which allowed a writ petition and non-suited the appellant in a pre-emption matter. The appellant had secured a pre-emption decree as a tenant-cum-lessee, which was subjected to litigation through the revenue hierarchy. The core legal question was whether a lessee cultivating land is a tenant entitled to pre-emption under paragraph 25(3)(d) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) and whether the Law Reforms (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance (XI of 1981) is retrospective in operation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the amending Ordinance, being declaratory and clarificatory, is retrospective in operation, and that a lessee is excluded from the definition of a tenant and thus cannot assert a right of pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court held that the plea of contiguity could not be raised for the first time before the apex court when parties had equal rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lessee cultivating land is considered a tenant under paragraph 25(3)(d) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Is the Law Reforms (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance (XI of 1981) retrospective in operation?
  • Can a plea of superior right of pre-emption on the basis of contiguity be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din vs Masood Pervez1990 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  leave to appealejectmentlandlord and tenantagreement to sellspecific performancerent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding an eviction order passed against him by the Rent Controller. The respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement, claiming ownership via a registered sale-deed from the previous owner. The petitioner contested the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting that the previous owner had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner's son, who had instituted a civil suit for specific performance and that possession was held in his own right, alongside a contention that no valid notice of transfer of the shop was received. The core legal question concerned the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the necessity of staying ejectment proceedings pending a civil suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the contentions raised, stayed the eviction of the petitioner, and ordered security, thereby allowing the matter for detailed examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pending suit for specific performance of a sale agreement regarding the disputed property negate the relationship of landlord and tenant in ejectment proceedings?
  • Is a tenant liable for ejectment on the ground of default in rent when claiming possession in an independent right based on an agreement of sale executed in favour of a family member?
  • Whether the Rent Controller is bound to implead a third party claiming title through an agreement of sale in summary ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rohani Khan vs The State1990 SCMR 682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15
  leave to appealmurderreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealsentence reductionpremeditation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Rohani Khan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had maintained his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing his death sentence to life imprisonment, along with convictions under section 307/34. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the guilt of the petitioner for murder and causing injuries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had thoroughly sifted the evidence and that the defense version was implausible in light of the injuries sustained by both sides, establishing a case of premeditation. The petition was accordingly dismissed as the sentence awarded was in accordance with the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence on questions of fact when the High Court has already thoroughly and correctly sifted the record, absent any misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence on questions of fact already thoroughly sifted by the High Court?
  • Does a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned upon sufficient cause?
  • Whether the sentence of death can be reduced to life imprisonment based on the facts and circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Riffat Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 846 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Manager1990 PLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31
  permanent workmanregularizationStanding Orders Ordinancelabour lawsettlement agreementindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals filed by the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan against the orders of the Labour Court, which directed the regularization of two workmen. The core legal question was whether workmen who had completed over nine months of service were entitled to be classified as 'permanent workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, notwithstanding a settlement agreement between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the management that stipulated a later date for regularization. The Court held that the respondents, having completed over nine months of service, satisfied the statutory definition of permanent workmen under the Standing Orders. The Court ruled that parties cannot contract out of the law, and a settlement agreement cannot deprive workmen of rights guaranteed by the Ordinance unless the settlement terms are more favourable to the workmen. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the settlement did not preclude the workmen from claiming regularization from the date they attained the status of permanent workmen under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the completion of nine months of service automatically qualify a workman as a 'permanent workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can a settlement agreement between a Collective Bargaining Agent and an employer override the statutory rights of workmen regarding their classification?
  • Is a workman estopped from claiming regularization from a date prior to that specified in a settlement agreement if the agreement does not explicitly prohibit such claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs Muhammad Asghar1990 PLD Supreme Court 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01
  non-prosecutionevictionleave to appealAdvocate-on-Recordinterim relieflandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a tenant's petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order issued under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, based on grounds of default and personal requirement of the landlord. The petitioner had previously failed in his appeal before the High Court regarding the issue of default in rent payment. Upon the scheduled hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel was absent due to a curfew in Hyderabad. Although the Court requested the Advocate-on-Record (A.O.R.) to argue the petition, the A.O.R. declined, citing instructions from the absent counsel not to proceed. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. However, acknowledging the competence of the A.O.R. institution and the potential prejudice to the petitioner due to the counsel's conduct, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek revival of the petition. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim order restraining the physical eviction of the tenant until February 15, 1990, to allow the petitioner sufficient time to file an application for restoration of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Advocate-on-Record be required to argue a petition in the absence of the engaged counsel?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution due to counsel's absence preclude the petitioner from seeking restoration of the petition?
  • What is the status and role of an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Shah and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Riaz Masih alias Nanna and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Janjua vs B.A. Nasir, Assistant Commissioner Chunian1990 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Mansuri vs Abid Ali Qazi and 2 others1990 MLD 1786 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-14
  passing offinterim injunctiongoodwilltrade markbalance of convenienceprima facie caseintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from using the name 'The Cricketer' for their sports magazine, alleging passing off. The plaintiff claimed to have published his magazine under that name since 1972, establishing goodwill in Pakistan. The defendants contended that they were authorized to publish 'The Cricketer International,' a globally renowned magazine published since 1921, and argued that the plaintiff had actually copied the name and style of this international publication. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of passing off and goodwill sufficient to warrant an interim injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the international magazine had prior and established circulation. The Court emphasized that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as the plaintiff had essentially copied the name of a pre-existing international publication. Consequently, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff in a passing off action need to prove that their mark was distinctive and continuously in use?
  • Is the user of a trade mark outside Pakistan relevant for determining the question of registration within Pakistan?
  • Can a plaintiff who has copied the name of an established international publication successfully claim passing off against the authorized local publishers of that international publication?
  • Does the balance of convenience favor the refusal of an interim injunction where the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of exclusive goodwill?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Municipal Committee, Chishtian And Other1990 CLC 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Tahir vs The Pakistan Railway Through Its General Manager1990 CLC 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali And Others vs Rashid Ahmed And Other1990 CLC 1964 · Board of Revenue · 1987-01-06Read full judgment →
• Revenue) Wali Muhammad and others vs Sharif1990 MLD 2281 · Board of Revenue · 1989-11-02Read full judgment →
• Resident Engineer, Thermal Power Station, Quetta vs Raz Muhammad1990 PLC 726 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-06-24Read full judgment →
• Republic Motors Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer and others1990 PTD 889 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-30
  reassessmentchange of opinionincome taxjurisdictionconstitutional petitionpublic limited companyprivate limited company
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the reopening of income tax assessments under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for several assessment years. The petitioner, a company nationalized and later owned by the Federal Government through PACO, had originally been assessed and taxed as a public limited company. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer sought to reopen the assessments to apply a higher tax rate applicable to private limited companies, claiming the corporate status was wrongly determined. The core legal question was whether a mere change of opinion or a reinterpretation of law on the same set of facts constitutes valid 'information' to invoke section 65 for reassessment. The court held that reassessment proceedings under section 65 cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion by the assessing officer or based on a new interpretation of law derived from existing records without any new definite information from an external source. The court concluded that the impugned notices and reassessment orders were issued without lawful jurisdiction and consequently set them aside along with the appellate orders confirming them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere change of opinion by an Income Tax Officer on the same set of facts constitute valid 'information' to invoke section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for reassessment?
  • Can an aggrieved party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without exhausting alternate remedies when the impugned action is challenged on the ground of complete lack of jurisdiction?
  • Does obtaining a new interpretation of a legal provision from internal review or legal books constitute external 'information' sufficient for reopening a concluded tax assessment?
  • Do appellate orders confirming a reassessment order inherit the jurisdictional defect and voidness if the original notice and reassessment order under section 65 were issued without lawful jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Reoti Parshad Anand Kumar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 233 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah through his Legal Heir and anothers vs Province of Sindh1990 MLD 2353 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-08
  cancellation of leasestatutory noticeColonization of Government Lands Actnatural justicevoid orderappellate hearingagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of agricultural land leases granted to the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the failure to issue a mandatory prior notice, as required by Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, rendered the cancellation order void, and whether subsequent hearings at appellate or revisional stages could cure this initial defect. The Court held that where a statute expressly mandates a prior notice before an adverse order is passed, the failure to provide such notice renders the order void ab initio. The Court distinguished between statutory notice requirements and general principles of natural justice, holding that while appellate hearings might cure a violation of natural justice, they cannot cure the non-compliance with an express statutory requirement for prior notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, declaring them to have been passed without lawful authority, while permitting the department to initiate fresh proceedings provided they comply with the statutory notice requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a mandatory statutory notice prior to the cancellation of a land lease render the cancellation order void?
  • Can a subsequent hearing at the appellate or revisional stage cure the defect of a missing statutory notice required by law?
  • Is there a legal distinction between the violation of a statutory notice requirement and the violation of the general principles of natural justice regarding the curing of procedural defects?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat and 7 others vs Muhammad Boota and 5 others1990 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12
  reversionary rightsMuslim Personal Lawsale challengeleave to appealinheritance rightscustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The petitioners, acting as plaintiffs, had challenged a sale transaction based on their alleged reversionary rights. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners could maintain a claim based on reversionary rights following the legislative changes introduced by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act. The High Court had dismissed the appeal, ruling that the petitioners' claim was untenable due to the enforcement of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the legal position was settled by the precedent established in Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1985 SC 407). Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not succeed in their challenge, as the statutory amendments precluded the assertion of such reversionary rights. Leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the dismissal of the petitioners' claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a claim based on reversionary rights be maintained following the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983?
  • Does the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 extinguish claims based on reversionary rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Shah vs Secretary, Defence Production Division, Rawalpindi1990 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11
  service appealdismissal from servicemisappropriationinquiry proceedingsconsistent ordersleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld his dismissal from service for cash shortage and misappropriation while serving as a Cashier in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the same lenient treatment of conversion of penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement as given to another co-employee in similar circumstances, and whether the inquiry suffered from procedural defects. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that arguable points were raised regarding the consistency of tribunal orders and the evidentiary basis of the inquiry. The key principle laid down is that judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals must maintain consistency in deciding similar matters involving co-employees, and leave to appeal may be granted when inconsistent orders are passed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is bound to pass consistent orders in similar matters involving co-employees?
  • Can an employee be held guilty of misappropriation without proper evidence and inquiry conducted in support of the charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali and others vs Ahmad Yar1990 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-13
  pre-emptionre-sale to vendorsuperior rightlis pendensre-conveyancecollateral
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit. The original owner (appellant No. 1) sold the suit land to a vendee, whose legal heirs subsequently re-conveyed the land back to appellant No. 1 through two mutations. The respondent, claiming a superior pre-emptive right as a collateral, filed a suit to pre-empt the original sale and challenged the re-conveyances. The core legal question was whether a re-sale or re-conveyance of the suit property by a vendee back to the original vendor defeats the pre-emptive right of a plaintiff. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a pre-emptor's right cannot be defeated by a re-sale to the original vendor unless the vendor demonstrates that, despite the original sale, they retained an independent right in the property equal or superior to that of the pre-emptor. Since the original vendor had sold his entire holding and retained no such independent right, the re-conveyance did not defeat the respondent's superior right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a re-sale of the suit property by a vendee back to the original vendor defeats the pre-emptive right of a plaintiff?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a sale of property to a person possessing an equal or superior pre-emptive right during the pendency of a pre-emption suit?
  • Can an original vendor who has sold his entire holding and retained no independent contiguous or co-sharer rights defeat a pre-emptor's claim by purchasing the property back?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehm Din vs Shafqat Ali and others1990 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20
  criminal leave to appealocular testimonyrecovery evidenceacquittalcommon intentionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentences of the respondents for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitted them. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony and the recovery evidence regarding blood-stained weapons and clothes. The Supreme Court held that the reasons provided by the High Court for disbelieving the eye-witnesses due to unexplained presence and finding the recovery evidence improbable were sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal where the High Court's evaluation of ocular and circumstantial evidence is based on sound and plausible reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting ocular testimony due to the lack of satisfactory explanation for the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene?
  • Is the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes from the accused sufficient to sustain a conviction when ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Refique Saigal vs P.I.A. and others1990 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20
  review petitioncriminal complaintdishonoured chequesquashment of proceedingsnotice of hearingadvocate-on-recordcriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a review petition against a Supreme Court order dated 15-12-1980, which had previously set aside a High Court order quashing a criminal complaint filed under sections 409, 420, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, a director of a company involved in a travel agency business, challenged the prior dismissal of their appeal, contending they lacked notice of the hearing date and were engaged in legal proceedings in Karachi on that day. The core legal question was whether the appellant had been duly notified of the hearing and whether the dismissal of their appeal was justified given the alleged lack of notice. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the appellant’s Advocate-on-Record had been explicitly informed of the hearing date on the day it occurred, yet failed to take any steps to request an adjournment or communicate with the Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had sufficient notice, and finding no merit in the review petition, dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be maintained when the applicant fails to demonstrate a lack of notice for the original hearing?
  • Does the knowledge of an Advocate-on-Record regarding a hearing date constitute sufficient notice to the party represented?
  • Is a party entitled to relief in a review petition if they fail to take any action to request an adjournment upon learning of a scheduled hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Raziq Ali and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1779 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Razia Bibi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad and others vs The State1990 MLD 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan and another vs Khan Sahib Madad Khan and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Raunao Ali Khan and another vs Provincial Government through Collector, Gujranwala and 9 others1990 P Cr. L J 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Rauf Trading Company Limited vs Faisalabad Municipal Corporation1990 CLC 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-16
  octroi ratestaxation proposalspublic noticeprocedural mandatory requirementsconstitutional petitionalternative remedylachesfiscal statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed constitutional petitions challenging the validity of enhanced octroi rates fixed by the Faisalabad Municipal Corporation on items such as RBD oil, iron and steel pipes, and marble slabs. The respondent corporation had initially proposed a specific rate increase in a public notice inviting objections, but subsequently passed a resolution fixing the rates at a significantly higher level than proposed, without issuing a fresh public notice or inviting objections. The Lahore High Court held that the procedural stages for tax imposition under the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 are mandatory, and any omission of these steps vitiates the tax itself. The Court ruled that the corporation had no jurisdiction to levy a rate higher than that notified in the public notice, as doing so defeats the purpose of inviting public objections. Consequently, the Court declared the enhanced rates illegal, restored the previous schedule, and directed the establishment of a special account to process refunds for the overcharged citizens.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a local council has the jurisdiction to levy a tax or octroi rate higher than the rate originally proposed in its public notice without inviting fresh objections?
  • Are the procedural stages for tax formulation and notification under the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 directory or mandatory in nature?
  • Does the failure of a local authority to follow mandatory statutory procedures for tax revision render the subsequent tax imposition illegal and void?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained despite the availability of an alternative supervisory remedy under Section 139 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Ali Khan1990 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-13
  pre-emptionco-sharerexchange of landleave to appealconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption matter where the respondent filed a suit for possession of land through pre-emption, claiming superior rights as a co-sharer and owner of contiguous property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and the lower appellate court as well as the Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal and civil revision respectively. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had successfully improved his status as a co-sharer prior to the institution of the suit through an exchange of land. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged exchange through reliable documentary evidence such as Khasra Girdawari, and noted that all three lower courts had concurrently decided the question of fact against the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the unproven status of the exchange.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral evidence alone is sufficient to prove an exchange of land for the purpose of improving pre-emption status without corroborating documentary evidence like Khasra Girdawari?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts regarding the failure to prove an exchange be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Does a defendant claiming equal pre-emption rights based on an exchange bear the burden of proving such exchange satisfactorily?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Tahir vs Superintendent of Police1990 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22
  disciplinary proceedingspolice serviceservice tribunaltainted moneymisconductnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the disciplinary punishment of reduction in pay by three stages imposed upon the petitioner, a police officer. The petitioner had been penalized following regular police proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, after tainted money was recovered from his possession. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioner was not found to have demanded the money as illegal gratification, his possession of such funds was inconsistent with the standards expected of a member of a disciplined force. The Court held that the disciplinary authorities and the Tribunal had acted within their jurisdiction and that the petitioner had been afforded due process. Consequently, the Court found no violation of rules or principles of natural justice and dismissed the petition, noting that the punishment was relatively lenient given the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of tainted money by a police officer justify disciplinary action under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Can a service tribunal's decision upholding a disciplinary penalty be challenged if the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Jalees alias Jaloo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlcognizable offencesearch and recoveryprivate residenceprocedural irregularityinvestigating officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition arose from charges under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, involving the alleged recovery of heroin from the petitioner's private residence. The core legal questions concerned whether an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order is cognizable when committed in a private house, and whether procedural irregularities regarding search and recovery warrant the grant of bail. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, an offence under Article 4 is only cognizable if committed in a public place. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case questionable. Furthermore, the Court observed that the failure to associate independent inhabitants of the locality during the search violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noted the potential bias arising from the complainant acting as the investigating officer. Emphasizing that procedural compliance is essential and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage favors the accused, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, rejecting the prosecution's arguments regarding the scope of cognizable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable if committed in a private house?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a search violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a complainant who is also the investigating officer conduct a fair investigation?
  • Does the quantity of narcotics recovered determine the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Shabbir Ahmad vs Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Multan1990 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantsuppression of factsclean hands doctrineconstitutional petitionleave to appealoral agreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner. The petitioner, facing an ejectment petition filed by minors through their father, claimed he was not a tenant but rather a purchaser of the property under an oral agreement to sell. The Rent Controller rejected this plea and ordered the deposit of rent. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition due to the suppression of a material order passed by the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was justified because the petitioner had deliberately suppressed a prior order dated 6th November 1988, which had already rejected the petitioner's claim of an oral agreement to sell and affirmed the landlord-tenant relationship. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking relief in constitutional jurisdiction must come with clean hands; the deliberate suppression of a material order directly bearing on the case disentitles the petitioner to discretionary constitutional relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of a material order by a petitioner in a constitutional petition justify its dismissal?
  • Can a Rent Controller proceed with an order for the deposit of rent before determining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Is a petitioner who fails to disclose a relevant prior order entitled to discretionary relief in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Shabbir (Deceased) Through His 10 L.Hrs. vs Muhammad1990 CLC 546 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-20
  pre-emptionborder area landproprietary rightscourt-feeallotment schemeregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over the right of pre-emption concerning agricultural land situated in the Border Area of village Badri Narianpura. The appellants, legal representatives of the original vendee, challenged the lower courts' decree in favor of the respondents, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption as village owners and Patidars. The core legal questions were whether the land, being in a Border Area, was exempt from pre-emption under the relevant allotment scheme and whether the suit was maintainable given alleged valuation and court-fee deficiencies. The Court held that the sale was pre-emptible, noting that the provided scheme did not prohibit such sales to private persons and that no notification under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, had been issued to exclude this land from pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that court-fee deficiencies do not bar a suit if paid as ordered. The key principle laid down is that once proprietary rights are acquired in State or evacuee land, such land is subject to pre-emption unless explicitly excluded by a notification from the Board of Revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Is land situated in a Border Area exempt from the right of pre-emption in the absence of a specific notification by the Board of Revenue?
  • Can a suit for pre-emption be dismissed solely on the grounds of late payment of court-fee?
  • Does the acquisition of proprietary rights in State land render such land subject to the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sarwar vs Government of Punjab through Services, General Administration and Information Department and another1990 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30
  civil servantabolition of postterms and conditions of serviceService Tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionmala fideexclusive jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a Constitution Petition in the High Court challenging the abolition of his post, his transfer, his treatment as a surplus official, and the withholding of his salary, alleging that these actions were taken mala fide to deprive him of his post and emoluments. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the petitioner's remedy lay before the Service Tribunal. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision. The Court held that the reliefs sought by the petitioner directly related to the terms and conditions of his employment. It laid down the principle that even if the abolition of a post is within the exclusive competence of an authority, if it is used as a device to achieve an unlawful object, it constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of service. Furthermore, actions against civil servants can be challenged on grounds of mala fide of law or mala fide of fact before the Service Tribunal, which has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the abolition of a post used as a device to achieve an unlawful object constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to examine allegations of mala fide of law or mala fide of fact in actions taken against civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the Service Tribunal and invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge a transfer and withholding of salary on grounds of mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Jawaid Iqbal vs Inspector-General of Police, Sind and 3 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 122 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Iqbal Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
• Rana Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Shaft and others1990 MLD 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-15
  Civil revisionMemorandum of appealCertified copy of decreeOrder XLI Rule 1 CPCCondonation of delayLimitation ActMaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate court's dismissal of an appeal against a civil decree. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the trial court's order but failed to append a certified copy of the decree, submitting only an uncertified copy of the judgment. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could dispense with the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree or grant time for its submission. The High Court held that the appeal was rightly dismissed as incompetent. It affirmed that under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the requirement to append a certified copy of the decree is mandatory, and the appellate court lacks the authority to dispense with this specific document. The court further held that the failure to file the decree was not a mere technicality but a fatal procedural defect. Additionally, the court ruled that the petitioner’s failure to obtain and file the copies due to negligence did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable if the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree?
  • Does an appellate court have the power to dispense with the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can delay in filing the requisite copies of the judgment and decree be condoned where the appellant has been negligent in obtaining them?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Sohrab Khan and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-28
  revision petitionpower of attorneyjoint agencylimitationfraudulent mutationex parte decreedeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for declaration that a land sale mutation was fraudulent and without consideration. The petitioner, defendant in the original suit, argued the appeal was improperly dismissed and the suit was time-barred. The court held that where a power of attorney explicitly mandates that co-agents must act jointly, an appeal filed by only one attorney is incompetent and void, as the act of a single agent cannot bind the principal. Regarding limitation, the court determined that the cause of action for the plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased owner, accrued when the defendant asserted ownership and demanded a share of the produce after the owner's death, rather than at the time of the mutation. Consequently, the court affirmed the ex parte decree, finding the evidence supported the claim that the mutation was fraudulent and lacked consideration. The principle established is that strict adherence to the terms of a joint power of attorney is required, and unauthorized acts by a single co-agent are legally ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be validly presented by one of two co-agents when the power of attorney mandates that they act jointly?
  • When does the limitation period commence for a suit challenging a mutation based on fraud and lack of consideration?
  • Is an act performed by a single co-agent void when the principal has expressly delegated authority to be exercised jointly?
  Read full judgment →
• Rambilas Singh and others vs State of Bihar1990 MLD 461 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-04-06Read full judgment →
• Rama Bai and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 554 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ram Singh Verma vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and others1990 PTD 234 · Allahabad High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali Motani. vs Collector Of Customs (Appraising) And 3 OtherPTCL1990 CL. 855 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Raja Noor Alam vs Municipal Committee, Chakwal1990 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-21
  successor-in-interestpublic streetsite planpermanent injunctiondeclarationproperty boundariesconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over land ownership and the existence of a public passage, originating from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant against the Municipal Committee, Chakwal. The appellant challenged the construction of a public street on a portion of his plot, which he had purchased from the successor of the original owner, Ghulam Mehdi Khan. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as a successor-in-interest, was bound by the previous conduct and site plans of his predecessor, which had designated the disputed strip as a public street. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the appellant could not claim better rights than his predecessor, who had voluntarily excluded the strip for a street as per a sanctioned site plan. The Court affirmed that a successor-in-interest is bound by the acts and admissions of their predecessor regarding property boundaries and usage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the findings of fact regarding the existence of the street were supported by evidence and warranted no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Is a successor-in-interest bound by the acts and admissions of their predecessor regarding the designation of property as a public street?
  • Can a purchaser of land claim rights superior to those held by their predecessor-in-interest?
  • Does a sanctioned site plan showing a public street constitute binding evidence against a subsequent purchaser of the land?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Munawar and others vs The State1990 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15
  contempt of courtunconditional apologyillegal detentionpolice misconductpurging of contemptcourt bailiff
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, a Station House Officer and an Assistant Sub-Inspector, were convicted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court for contempt of court, arising from their illegal detention of a citizen and their obstruction and mistreatment of a court-appointed Bailiff tasked with recovering the detenu. The appellants appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the proceedings, the appellants tendered an unconditional apology, expressing genuine remorse for their actions and acknowledging that no individual, regardless of their official position, is above the law. The Supreme Court, while noting the severity of the appellants' conduct—which involved physical assault and intimidation of an officer of the court—observed that the appellants had realized their wrongdoing and were genuinely ashamed. Relying on the principle established in Fakhre Alam v. The State, which suggests that an unconditional apology can purge contempt, the Court accepted the apology. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants, and discharged them from their bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unconditional apology purge a finding of contempt of court?
  • Is a police officer's obstruction of a court-appointed bailiff sufficient grounds for a contempt of court conviction?
  • Does the acceptance of an unconditional apology by the Supreme Court necessitate the setting aside of a conviction for contempt of court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Niaz Khan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary1990 PLC (C.S.) 641 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-03-17Read full judgment →
• Raja Mohammad Fazil vs Superintending Engineer, 1ST OperationK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 325 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Raja Khurshid Ali vs Dr. Abdul Malik1990 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-05
  leave to appealcivil court jurisdictionrevenue court jurisdictionlandlord and tenantpending proceedingspermanent injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Balochistan, which reversed the decision of the District Judge and restored the Civil Judge's decree in a suit for permanent injunction regarding a brick-kiln and land lease. The core legal question revolves around whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, particularly considering pending proceedings and statutory bars on civil court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the question of the civil court's jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions barring civil court jurisdiction in favor of Revenue Courts, including procedural directives for returning plaints, apply prima facie to pending proceedings as well.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in disputes between landlords and tenants under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978?
  • Do provisions barring civil court jurisdiction and directing the return of plaints apply to pending proceedings?
  • What is the procedure to be followed by a civil court when it encounters a matter cognizable exclusively by a Revenue Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ghulam Hussain vs The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and another1990 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-26
  writ jurisdictionstamp dutyadmissibility of evidencefraud and misrepresentationdiscretionary jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedureimpounding of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between a grandson and his grandmother concerning the ownership of a house, where the grandson had previously obtained a decree based on an alleged gift. The grandmother filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging the decree was obtained through fraud. During the proceedings, she sought to introduce a lease agreement as evidence to contradict the gift claim. The trial court impounded the document for insufficient stamp duty, but the Additional District Judge allowed it to be exhibited. The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with this order. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the objection regarding stamp duty was being used by the appellant as a technical obstacle to suppress relevant evidence. The Court emphasized that the primary concern of stamp duty is the protection of state revenue, and where the State is not aggrieved, the court should avoid technicalities that hinder the administration of complete justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with an order allowing the admission of a document despite objections regarding stamp duty?
  • Can a party to a civil suit use the absence of stamp duty on a document as a ground to suppress relevant evidence?
  • Is the question of stamp duty on a document primarily a matter between the litigant and the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Abid Hussain vs District Accounts Officer, Sahiwal and others1990 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25
  service lawpay fixationpromotionfresh appointmentservice tribunalpre-mature increment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Elementary School Teacher, challenged the reduction of his pay and the recovery of excess salary by the District Accounts Officer. The petitioner had been appointed as a Secondary School Teacher in 1980, and his pay was initially fixed with a pre-mature increment based on the assumption that the appointment constituted a promotion. Subsequently, the authorities determined the appointment was a fresh entry rather than a promotion, leading to the withdrawal of the increment and a demand for a refund of excess payments. After the rejection of his departmental representation and the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appointment as a Secondary School Teacher constituted a promotion or a fresh appointment. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Department and the Tribunal, holding that the terms of the appointment letter clearly indicated a fresh appointment. The Court affirmed that pay fixation must strictly adhere to the nature of the appointment as defined by the governing service terms.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment as a Secondary School Teacher for an existing Elementary School Teacher constitute a promotion or a fresh appointment when the appointment letter specifies terms of a fresh appointment?
  • Can a government department recover excess salary paid due to an erroneous fixation of pay?
  Read full judgment →
• Raj Muhammad vs Hafiz Hbdul Karim And 7 Other1990 CLC 148 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
• Raisuddin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 881 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ali and others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-18
  evacuee propertyauction transferproperty disputeKhasra numberleave to appealsettlement laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning a plot of evacuee land measuring approximately 9-1/2 marlas in Barkatpura, Lahore. The petitioners, having purchased the plot through an auction in 1974, challenged a High Court decision that had set aside their transfer in favour of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 claimed the same plot had been transferred to him earlier in 1963 under Scheme No. VI. The core legal question was whether the plot auctioned to the petitioners was identical to the one previously transferred to respondent No. 3. The Supreme Court observed that respondent No. 3 provided documentary evidence, specifically an assessment report from 1964, confirming the plot bore the same Khasra number as the one auctioned to the petitioners. Conversely, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence to refute this claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct and refused to interfere, thereby upholding the cancellation of the petitioners' transfer. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of evidentiary proof in establishing title over disputed property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of evacuee property through auction prevail if the property was previously transferred to another party under a settlement scheme?
  • Is a High Court order declaring a transfer of property to be of no legal effect sustainable when documentary evidence confirms a prior valid transfer of the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah Khan And 65 Others vs Government of N. W.F.P. Through Secretary Agricultural Forest And Co Operation Department Peshawar And 5 Other1990 CLC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-25
  tax vs feequid pro quocolourable exercise of powerdelegated legislationtimber sale depotssaw millsenhancement of registration feeprovincial revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, operators of timber sale depots and saw-mills in Swat, challenged a notification dated 6 August 1984 amending rule 9 of the N.-W.F.P. Establishment of Sale Depots and Sawing Units Rules, 1978, which enhanced the registration and renewal fee tenfold from Rs. 100 to Rs. 1,000. The core legal question was whether the enhanced levy constituted a valid regulatory fee or an unconstitutional tax imposed through subordinate legislation without quid pro quo. The Peshawar High Court held that a fee requires a reasonable correlation to services rendered or benefits conferred, with the burden of proof resting on the imposing authority. The government admitted that the increase was meant to mobilize provincial revenue and discourage saw-mill installation rather than provide specific services. The Court held the impost lacked quid pro quo, amounting to a tax disguised as a fee, and violated Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the impugned notification amending rule 9 was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • What criteria distinguish a regulatory fee from a tax under constitutional and statutory law?
  • Does an enhancement of a fee intended solely to generate state revenue and discourage a trade amount to an unlawful tax?
  • Upon whom does the burden lie to establish the element of quid pro quo when a fee increase is challenged?
  • Can a provincial government impose a tax on trades or callings through subordinate rules without an enabling Act under Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The State1990 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19
  leave to appealkidnapping for ransomextortionconcurrent findingscriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the convictions and sentences of two co-accused while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the evidence regarding the petitioner's involvement in the kidnapping and extortion of a minor for ransom. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding the petitioner's guilt were based on reliable, unshaken testimony of the kidnapped victim and an eye-witness, and that the offence committed was heinous. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below based on unshaken eye-witness testimony warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against a High Court judgment maintaining a conviction for kidnapping and extortion where evidence is reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs Member Board of Revenue and 3 others1990 SCMR 1640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-13
  pre-emptionlocus standiLand Reforms Regulationaggrieved personwrit petitionannulment of salepre-emption decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition in a pre-emption matter. The Supreme Court initially granted leave to appeal solely to determine whether a sale dated 12-6-1972 fell within the 'Kharif of 1972' as the starting point for the right of pre-emption under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation. However, during the preparation of the judgment, the Court identified additional critical issues requiring adjudication. Specifically, the Court noted the need to determine whether vendors of land, whose sale was the subject of a pre-emption suit, possess the locus standi to challenge a pre-emption decree passed against the vendee, particularly in light of Section 6 of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976. Furthermore, the Court raised the question of whether a pre-emption suit remains competent when the underlying sale has been annulled by a subsequent court decree prior to the decision of the pre-emption suit. Consequently, the Court set aside the initial scope of the appeal and directed that the matter be re-heard to address these fundamental questions of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vendor of land has the locus standi to challenge a pre-emption decree passed against the vendee?
  • Whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable if the underlying sale has been annulled by a subsequent court decree before the pre-emption suit is decided?
  • Whether a vendor is an 'aggrieved person' entitled to file an appeal or revision against a pre-emption decree under the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1990 SCMR 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-16
  condonation of delaylimitation periodintra-court appealspecial leave to appealproperty disputedivisible property
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court. The first petition is barred by a substantial delay of 835 days, for which the petitioner seeks condonation based on the time spent pursuing an incompetent Intra-Court appeal. The Supreme Court holds, following established precedent, that pursuing an incompetent appeal does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and consequently dismisses the time-barred petition. The second petition arises from a property dispute over a divisible house in Sutar Mandi, Lahore, where the petitioners have already received the portion in their possession. The Court accordingly refuses leave to appeal in the second matter as well. The key principle laid down is that time spent prosecuting an incompetent remedy, such as an incompetent Intra-Court appeal, cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation or condoning delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time spent pursuing an incompetent intra-court appeal constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
  • Can a time-barred petition for special leave to appeal be entertained without sufficient cause shown for the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Raham Taj vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2021 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• Rafiuddin vs The State1990 MLD 600 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• Rafique Alam vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot And 31990 CLC 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-26
  constitutional petitiondisplaced personssettlement schemetransfer of propertypossessionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a long-standing property dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 regarding the transfer of a portion of a house in Sialkot between the petitioner, Rafique Alam, and the respondent, Amanat Ali. Both parties' fathers were initially jointly allotted separate portions of the house in 1952. After protracted administrative rounds and a previous remand by the High Court directing the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to ascertain if the petitioner was in possession by December 20, 1958, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's form through a roving inquiry into abandonment and lack of rent clearance. The core legal questions involved whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner exceeded his remand authority, whether non-claimant displaced persons can claim possession through their parents under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, and whether non-clearance of rent defeats such possession. The Lahore High Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority by exceeding the specific remand directions, and that the petitioner was entitled to transfer based on undisputed continuous possession derived from his father. The petition was accepted, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for issuance of transfer documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can exceed the specific scope and instructions of a High Court remand order?
  • Whether a non-claimant displaced person is entitled to take the benefit of the father's possession for the transfer of a property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  • Whether the non-clearance of rent by a target date disqualifies a person from being deemed in possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Hussain Shah vs Mst. Imtiaz Bibi And Another1990 CLC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Rafiq and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Superintending Engineer, III Circle, Electricity, WAPDA1990 PLC (C.S.) 533 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-12-28Read full judgment →
• Raeesuddin and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 506 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
• Rachappa Guruadappa, Bijapur vs Gurusiddappa Nuraniappa and others1990 MLD 1383 · Supreme Court of India
  partnership firmleave to appealcinema theatrecivil disputereconstituted firm
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 26th of May, 1988, which affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hubli. The core legal controversy involves a partnership firm constituted on 18th September, 1972, and subsequently reconstituted in August, 1973 for a period of 25 years to run a cinema theatre at Hubli, wherein the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 9 were partners, and the 1st respondent held a 12 paise share. Upon examining the facts and the petition, the court addressed the maintainability and merits of the dispute stemming from the partnership agreement. The court ultimately dealt with the petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower judicial fora.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the order of the Civil Judge regarding the partnership dispute?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against the judgment and order of the High Court upholding a civil court's order?
  • What are the rights of partners in a reconstituted partnership firm constituted to run a business for a fixed term?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State1990 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  post-arrest bailpolice encounterfalse implicationfurther inquiryleave to appealfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Rab Nawaz against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of firing at a police party and causing a simple injury to a constable during a raid. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the rival contentions regarding a possible false implication arising from a prior grudge and the absence of any firearm injury. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted bail to the appellant. The Court held that where the question of whether the petitioner intentionally fired at the police or whether the allegation was padded by the police due to a prior grudge cannot be determined without recording proper evidence, and taking into account the circumstances including simple injuries and lack of firearm hits, further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt is warranted under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the question of whether the accused intentionally fired at the police party requires further inquiry based on evidence?
  • Can bail be granted where allegations of a trumped-up case due to a prior grudge against the police carry significance?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail in the absence of any firearm injury when rival versions regarding the occurrence require trial determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan vs Hakeem Inamullah and others1990 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07
  leave to appealsettlement propertylicenseeevacuee propertystatus quowrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a property dispute. The petitioner, a former police officer, was permitted to reside in the disputed house as a licensee by the respondents. Despite admitting his status as a licensee and promising to vacate, the petitioner subsequently applied to Settlement Authorities to have the property transferred to his name. The respondents also applied for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII. While the petitioner's claim was initially rejected, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner later accepted his appeal. However, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the respondents' revision, citing the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974. The High Court subsequently set aside the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the controversy regarding possession, particularly in light of a specific Tehsildar report, required further judicial consideration. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, bar the maintainability of pending appeal-cum-revision proceedings regarding settlement property?
  • Can a licensee who has admitted their status as such subsequently claim ownership of the property through settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and anotherAppaants vs The State1990 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19
  sudden fightculpable homicideException 4 to Section 300premeditationcriminal appealheat of passioncommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for murder and attempted murder. The appellants were initially convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the High Court maintaining the convictions but reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the incident, arising from a long-standing family feud, constituted murder or fell under the exception for sudden fights. The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence began suddenly without premeditation when the parties encountered each other, leading to an affray where both sides exchanged gunfire and stones. Holding that the incident lacked premeditation and occurred in the heat of passion without undue advantage or cruel behavior, the Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court set aside the original convictions, substituting them with convictions under Section 304, Part I, and Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle established is that where a fight occurs suddenly without prior planning, the culpability is mitigated under Exception 4, regardless of who initiated the provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden fight between parties with a history of enmity qualify for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is it necessary to determine which party initiated the provocation for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the element of premeditation is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Quetta Textile Mills Ltd., Kotri vs Sind Employees Social Security1990 PLC 577 · Social Security Court · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
• Qudratulah vs Government of Balochistan and another1990 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27
  service tribunalad hoc appointmentreversionreview petitionback-salaryconstitutional jurisdictionservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the Service Tribunal misconstrued the facts by treating a second service appeal as a review petition against its earlier judgment. The appellant, initially holding a regular post in B.16 and an ad hoc appointment in B.17, had his services terminated, which was previously set aside by the Tribunal directing his reversion to his former appointment or adjustment in B.16. Upon compliance by the Government in B.16, the appellant filed another appeal claiming entitlement to B.17 and alleging non-compliance and discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the Government had fully complied with the earlier judgment of the Service Tribunal, which permitted adjustment in B.16, and that an ad hoc appointee has no legal right to continue in an ad hoc position. Furthermore, the plea of discrimination involved disputed questions of fact and necessary parties were not impleaded. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Service Tribunal can review its own earlier final judgment under the garb of interpreting the same?
  • Does an ad hoc appointee possess a vested legal right to continue holding an ad hoc post upon restructuring or economy measures?
  • Whether an order of the Government reinstating an employee in B.16 pursuant to an alternative direction of the Service Tribunal constitutes non-compliance of its judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Inayat Ullah vs Election Tribunal1990 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Rehman vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 218 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan vs Mirza Ali Khan and others1990 MLD 2406 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• Qamrul Hasan and anothers vs United Bank Ltd. and another1990 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-29
  telegraphic transferbank liabilitybranch and head officefall of daccaprivate international lawlex situsproper law of contractburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit involved a claim for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 based on a telegraphic transfer made on 11-12-1971 by plaintiff No. 2 from the Tej Gaon Branch, Dacca, of the defendant bank in favor of plaintiff No. 1, payable at the PECHS Branch, Karachi, shortly before the fall of Dacca. The core legal questions centered on whether the deposit and telegraphic transfer were duly made and received, whether a drawee branch must physically receive funds before liability arises, and whether a banking corporation as a legal entity is liable for the defaults or unfulfilled obligations of its branches when the branch ceases to function due to war or force majeure. The Sindh High Court held that the deposit and dispatch of the telegraphic message were established, physical receipt of funds by the drawee branch was not a prerequisite where the message was sent, and the bank as a single corporate entity remained liable for the unfulfilled obligations of its defunct branch. The court laid down the principle that where money is deposited for a specific telegraphic remittance and the remitting branch fails in its duty, the aggrieved party has a joint and several remedy against the bank as an entity and its concerned branches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a banking corporation as an integral entity is liable for a telegraphic transfer deposited at one of its branches which subsequently became defunct due to war?
  • Does a telegraphic transfer become payable only upon the physical receipt of funds by the drawee branch, or is the dispatch and receipt of an authenticated telegraphic message sufficient?
  • How are handwriting and official documents proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, where direct authors are not examined?
  • What presumption arises under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party fails to produce the best available documentary evidence regarding receipt of telegraphic messages?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamaruzzaman vs Zilla Council, Bahawalpur through Chairman, Zilla1990 MLD 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07
  export taxtaxing statutestrict constructionconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedywrit of mandamusinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a dispute over the interpretation of the term 'truck' in the Schedule of Export Tax notified by the District Council, Bahawalpur. The petitioner, a trader of cotton seeds and cotton cakes, challenged the practice of the respondents—contractors for the District Council—of charging export tax based on the weight of the goods rather than per truck, as stipulated in the Schedule. The core legal question was whether the term 'truck' in a taxing statute should be interpreted according to the Motor Vehicles Ordinance or its ordinary dictionary meaning, and whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was barred by the availability of alternative remedies under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly according to their letter, rejecting any equitable or extended interpretation. It ruled that 'truck' refers to the vehicle itself, not the weight of the cargo. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies is not an absolute bar to constitutional jurisdiction when the issue involves the interpretation of law or acts in excess of authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a taxing statute can be interpreted using definitions from a different, unrelated statute?
  • Does the availability of alternative remedies under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Should the term 'truck' in a tax schedule be interpreted based on the weight of the cargo or as a vehicle unit?
  • Is the principle of strict construction applicable to the interpretation of fiscal statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman vs Shabbir Ahmad and another1990 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-21
  leave to appealacquittalre-appraisal of evidencecriminal appealmurder convictiondisappearance of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Shabbir Ahmad, of charges under sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been previously convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Muhammad Taqi and for causing the disappearance of evidence, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment. Upon appeal, the High Court re-evaluated the evidence, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and set aside the conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed any error of law in its appraisement of the evidence or its legal approach in reversing the conviction. The Supreme Court found no such error in the High Court's reasoning or assessment of the facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellate court's acquittal based on a thorough re-appraisal of evidence will not be disturbed absent a demonstrated legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order where the High Court has thoroughly discussed and appraised the evidence?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal succeed if the petitioner fails to demonstrate an error of law in the High Court's judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim Din vs Muhammad Suleman and 2 others1990 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26
  pre-arrest baildirect complaintnon-bailable warrantspolice investigationleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant against an order of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to respondents in a murder case. The respondents had previously been discharged by the police during the investigation, but were subsequently summoned by the trial court following a direct complaint. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail, reasoning that the trial court had issued non-bailable warrants without adequately considering the police findings of innocence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, specifically focusing on whether the High Court correctly evaluated the police record, whether police findings are superseded by trial court findings under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether it was legally appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail without the accused first surrendering to the trial court or establishing mala fide intent. Upon the petitioner's concession, the Court limited the scope of the appeal to one respondent, Suleman, who accepted notice, and directed that the case be heard at an early date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the findings of the police are superseded by the findings of the trial court for the purposes of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it lawful and proper to allow pre-arrest bail to an accused without them having surrendered before the trial court and having made an application for bail in the first instance before that court?
  • Must the condition of arrest being mala fide be satisfied for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim Din through Legal Heirs vs Said Ahmad through Legal Heirs and another1990 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ahmad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and anothers1990 PLD Supreme Court 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-15
  contempt of courtback benefitswrongful dismissalreinstatementdepartmental enquirycivil servantsindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a contempt application filed by the appellant, a dispenser, after his employer failed to reinstate him and pay back benefits despite a High Court judgment declaring his dismissal orders illegal. The High Court had allowed the employer to initiate fresh inquiry proceedings, which subsequently led to a second dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether the setting aside of a dismissal order automatically entitles an employee to back benefits, and whether contempt proceedings lie for the non-payment of such benefits. The Court held that a mere setting aside of a dismissal order does not unconditionally entitle a functionary to arrears of pay, particularly where the reinstatement is conditional or subject to a fresh inquiry. Furthermore, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for the violation of an order that is merely inferential, deductive, or implied. The Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to proceed in contempt and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the setting aside of a dismissal order automatically entitle an employee to back benefits and arrears of pay?
  • Can contempt of court proceedings be initiated for the violation of an order that is merely inferential, deductive, or implied?
  • How is the entitlement to back benefits determined when an order of reinstatement is made conditional upon a fresh inquiry into the employee's conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadar Dad vs Bahadur Khan and others1990 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21
  criminal appealocular evidenceinterested witnessescorroborationmedical evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted thirteen respondents previously convicted by the trial court for murder and related offenses. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses and the consistency of ocular testimony with medical findings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the respondents. The ratio of the decision is that where ocular evidence is provided by highly interested witnesses and lacks independent corroboration, it cannot sustain a conviction, particularly when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's narrative regarding the number of assailants and injuries inflicted. The Court affirmed that when the number of injuries on a deceased is not commensurate with the number of accused persons, it creates an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has exaggerated the number of accused to implicate rivals. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that uncorroborated testimony from interested witnesses is insufficient for conviction in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of highly interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does a discrepancy between the number of injuries on a deceased and the number of accused persons justify the rejection of ocular evidence?
  • Is the acquittal of accused persons justified when the prosecution fails to provide incriminating recoveries or independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Qabil and 6 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
• Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India1990 MLD 947 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-01-20Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Tahir Mahmood Qadri1990 PLC 499 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-13Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Siddiq1990 PLC 496 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-04Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Riaz1990 PLC 724 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Anwar1990 PLC 495 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Fazal Hussain1990 PLC 540 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-07Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Bashir Ahmad Khan Lodhi1990 PLC 723 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and another vs Syed Intizar Hussain1990 PLD Supreme Court 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →