Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Riaz vs Ghulam Qadir and another1990 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05
  leave to appealmurdergrave and sudden provocationre-appraisal of evidencealteration of convictioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, brother of the deceased, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside the respondent's conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code and altered it to one under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in accepting the defence version of extreme sustained provocation based on the statements of the accused and his daughter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no violation of law or principle in accepting the defence version on the evidence available, and declined to undertake a re-appraisal of evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily re-appraise evidence in a criminal matter where the High Court has reasonably appreciated the evidence to find grave and sudden or sustained provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence to interfere with a High Court judgment altering a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  • Does acceptance of the defence version of sustained provocation by the High Court warrant interference when no principle of law is violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation1990 PLC 604 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Sahi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Minhas vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-05
  bail before arrestprohibition of hadd ordercustoms actheroin smugglingmala fidefurther inquiryinvestigating officer opinion
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 read with sections 156(1) and 157 of the Customs Act 1969, arising out of a recovery of heroin from an office premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery, the investigating officer's declaration of innocence, and potential mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that where the investigating officer declares the accused innocent, no material directly connects the accused to the recovered contraband, and prima facie evidence points towards possible mala fides, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail despite the heinousness of the offence. The key principle laid down is that the heinousness of an allegation alone should not deny an accused pre-arrest bail when the facts and circumstances of the case, including a lack of incriminating evidence and potential mala fides, establish a case for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a narcotics case when the investigating officer declares the accused innocent?
  • Does the heinousness of an allegation alone bar an accused from obtaining pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether bail before arrest is maintainable when there is prima facie material indicating bad faith or mala fides in the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Khan vs Sardar Rahim Dad and 12 others1990 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and others vs Fateh Muhammad and others1990 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31
  pre-emptiontenancy rightsale-deeddistinct interestleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition by the High Court, upholding the lower courts' judgments in pre-emption suits. The petitioners, along with other respondents, had purchased agricultural land through a registered sale-deed wherein their share was stated as one-half and the others as the other half. The petitioners defended the pre-emption suits claiming a superior right as tenants of the land. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently held that by joining strangers in the purchase, the petitioners had lost their status as tenants and sunk to the level of non-tenants. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the sale-deed embodied two separate transactions, relying on Section 46 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding distinct interests in a transfer. The Supreme Court found the contentions raised need examination and granted leave to appeal, confirming the status quo regarding possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant who joins non-tenants in purchasing land lose their superior pre-emption right?
  • Whether a sale-deed specifying separate shares and distinct contributions constitutes separate transactions for the purpose of pre-emption?
  • Does Section 46 of the Transfer of Property Act apply to determine distinct interests in a property transfer for consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Resham Khan vs Chairman, Inspection Team And 3 Other1990 CLC 1355 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-04-21
  evacuee landallotment cancellationwrit jurisdictiondestitute statusstatutory interpretationnecessary partydelay in judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from the cancellation of an evacuee land allotment by an Inspection Team acting under the Irregular and Unauthorised Allotment (Cancellation) Ordinance 1978. The appellant, who claimed destitute status under Government Order 25/60, challenged the cancellation in the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition. On appeal, the appellant contended that the High Court's judgment was invalid as it was announced more than three months after arguments, and that the Inspection Team lacked jurisdiction to cancel allotments made under a regular scheme. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was signed within the three-month period and was thus valid. Interpreting Section 3 of the Ordinance, the Court held that the word 'or' disjunctively expanded the Inspection Team's jurisdiction to include allotments obtained via fraud, misrepresentation, or in violation of rules, even if covered by a regular scheme. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the factual findings and noting that the failure to implead the Inspection Team itself was fatal to the writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of more than three months between hearing arguments and announcing a judgment invalidate the judgment if it was signed by the judge within three months?
  • Does the phrase 'not covered by any regular scheme or which has been obtained by using official position...' in Section 3 of the Irregular and Unauthorised Allotment (Cancellation) Ordinance 1978 exclude allotments made under regular schemes from the jurisdiction of the Inspection Team?
  • Is the Inspection Team itself a necessary party to a writ petition challenging its order of cancellation under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and 2 others vs The State and others1990 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-25
  surety bondforfeiture of bondjoint and several liabilitybailnarcotics caseleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by sureties challenging a High Court order regarding the forfeiture and recovery of surety amounts in a narcotics case. The petitioners sought to challenge the forfeiture, arguing that the terms of the surety bonds implied only joint liability, which would limit their individual financial exposure. The core legal question was whether the language used in the surety bonds created joint or several liability for the sureties. Upon examination, the Court determined that the Urdu terminology used in the bonds translated to 'severally,' meaning each surety was independently liable for the full amount, in addition to being jointly liable. The Court found that the High Court had already exercised discretion by reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 40,000 per surety. Finding no merit in the arguments for further leniency or a different interpretation of the bond terms, the Supreme Court refused the leave to appeal, affirming the principle that surety bonds can impose both joint and several liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of specific terminology in a surety bond create joint or several liability for the sureties?
  • Can a surety be held independently liable for the full amount of a forfeited bail bond?
  • Is a surety entitled to leniency regarding the forfeiture amount if the High Court has already exercised discretion in reducing it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and another1990 PLD Lahore 267 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Province of the Punjab and 3 others1990 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11
  arbitration awardcontractor disputemisconduct of arbitratorleave to appealcivil contractappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding an arbitration award. The dispute arose from a construction contract between the petitioner-contractor and the respondent-Department concerning the installation of steel collapsible sliding gates. Following the completion of work, the matter was referred to an arbitrator, who allowed three of the petitioner's four claims but rejected claim No. 3. The petitioner challenged the rejection of this specific claim, alleging misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The Supreme Court examined the record and the findings of the High Court. The Court held that the arbitrator's rejection of the specific claim did not constitute legal misconduct. Consequently, the Court found no error of law or question of public importance necessitating further examination. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that an arbitrator's decision on specific claims, absent clear evidence of misconduct or legal error, remains binding and is not subject to interference by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a specific claim by an arbitrator constitute misconduct sufficient to set aside an award?
  • Is an arbitrator's finding on a disputed claim subject to judicial interference in the absence of an error of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs N.-W.F.P, through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others1990 CLC 1188 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Bashir AlMAD1990 MLD 825 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 633 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Tariq Mahmood and 3 others vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 886 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1990 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  misappropriationcriminal breach of trustprevention of corruptionenhancement of sentencerevisional jurisdictionregistration feeappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Registration Moharrir, challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, enhanced his sentence for misappropriation of government funds. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial court under the Prevention of Corruption Act for failing to deposit registration fees collected during his tenure. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction and the subsequent enhancement of the sentence by the High Court were justified based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and the recovery of misappropriated funds from the petitioner's residence, and found the conviction to be sound. The Court upheld the conviction and the fine imposed but, considering the significant passage of time since the case was registered in 1976 and the period the petitioner had already spent in custody, exercised its discretion to reduce the substantive imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone. The principle affirmed is that where prosecution evidence comprehensively establishes guilt, concurrent findings of lower courts regarding conviction are not open to interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reduce a substantive sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining a fine upon conviction for corruption?
  • Is a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 sustainable when the prosecution establishes the misappropriation of government funds through witness testimony and recovery of evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce every single witness who paid a registration fee create a presumption that the prosecution's case is unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State (Copy)1990 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-11
  narcotics recoveryprohibition enforcementhostile witnessrevisional jurisdictionsentence enhancementpossession of heroincriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a Federal Shariat Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, while enhancing his sentence in revisional jurisdiction. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction when independent recovery witnesses turn hostile, and the propriety of enhancing a sentence without considering mitigating factors admitted by the prosecution. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the testimony of a credible, impartial raiding officer can sustain a conviction even in the absence of independent corroboration. However, the Court set aside the enhanced sentence, restoring the trial court’s original punishment. The ratio establishes that while the gravity of a narcotics offense justifies severe punishment, appellate courts must weigh all evidence, including admissions by prosecution witnesses that favor the accused—such as the lack of evidence of smuggling or ownership—before exercising revisional powers to enhance sentences. Sentencing must remain proportionate to the specific role of the offender rather than relying solely on the nature of the contraband.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained based on the testimony of a raiding officer alone when independent witnesses turn hostile?
  • Does an appellate court, when exercising revisional jurisdiction to enhance a sentence, have a duty to consider mitigating admissions made by prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the possession of narcotics in a locked room within a private house sufficient to establish criminal liability under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Nasrullah and others1990 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-08
  sudden fightpremeditationindividual liabilityreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the respondents were initially convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Boota. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court re-evaluated the evidence, concluding that the incident constituted a sudden fight without premeditation rather than a pre-planned attack. Consequently, the High Court modified the convictions, holding each accused liable only for their individual acts under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the deceased's nephew, challenged this finding in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's determination was well-founded in evidence, particularly noting that both parties were armed and injuries were sustained by both sides. The Court reiterated the principle that it does not normally undertake a reappraisal of evidence and that where a finding is reasonably supported by the record and conceded by counsel, no interference is warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court normally undertake a reappraisal of evidence in criminal appeals?
  • When can a court hold each accused liable for their individual acts rather than under vicarious liability?
  • Is a finding of a sudden fight without premeditation sufficient to warrant interference by the Supreme Court if it is supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Director, Agricultural Engineering, Hyderabad1990 PLC 648 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs The Border Area Committee, Lahore and 10 others1990 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-18
  Border Area CommitteeMartial Law Regulation No. 9Evacuee propertyLand allotment cancellationUrban agricultural landRehabilitation Settlement SchemeJurisdiction of statutory bodies
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment concerning the cancellation of a land allotment by the Border Area Committee. The core legal question was whether the Border Area Committee possessed the jurisdiction to cancel allotments of urban agricultural land, given that the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme generally excluded urban land from its purview. The Supreme Court held that the Border Area Committee indeed possessed the requisite jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that Martial Law Regulation No. 9 conferred broad, overriding powers on the Border Area Committee to scrutinize allotments of all evacuee property within border areas. These powers were not constrained by the limitations or exclusions contained within the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, as the Regulation incorporated the Scheme's standards for scrutiny while subordinating its restrictive provisions. Consequently, the High Court’s initial finding that the Committee lacked jurisdiction over urban land was erroneous. As the appellants failed to demonstrate that the original allotment met the necessary criteria under the Border Area Scheme, the cancellation was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Border Area Committee have jurisdiction to cancel allotments of urban agricultural land under Martial Law Regulation No. 9?
  • Are the restrictions on urban land in the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme applicable to the scrutiny powers of the Border Area Committee?
  • Does Martial Law Regulation No. 9 override the limitations contained in the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme regarding the allotment of evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 196 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1193 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Ramzan and others1990 SCMR 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12
  Had Barariconcurrent findingsencroachmentrevenue recordsleave to appealpossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his civil revisions regarding a dispute over possession of property. The petitioner claimed ownership and alleged that the respondents had forcibly and unauthorizedly constructed on his land. The trial court, after ordering a fresh 'Had Barari' (demarcation) by revenue officials, dismissed the suits, finding that the respondents were in occupation of their own areas and had not encroached upon the petitioner's land. The Additional District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeals, and the High Court dismissed the civil revisions in limine. The core legal question was whether the 'Had Barari' conducted by the revenue staff was procedurally flawed due to improper measurement techniques. The Supreme Court held that the revenue officials correctly utilized established 'Burjis' and revenue records to determine boundaries. Finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper revenue records generally warrant no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property boundaries made by lower courts based on revenue reports?
  • Is a 'Had Barari' report conducted by revenue officials valid if it relies on established 'Burjis' and existing Khasra numbers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Province of the Punjab and another1990 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  departmental proceedingspolice disciplineacquittal on benefit of doubtmisconductdismissal from serviceforgeryservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-Constable of the Punjab Police, challenged his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings. He had been absent from duty for fifteen months and was subsequently prosecuted for forgery and cheating, leading to an initial conviction by a Special Judge, which was later set aside by the High Court on appeal, granting him the benefit of doubt. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.-G.) dismissed his departmental appeal based on the erroneous assumption that his criminal conviction still stood. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal despite the acquittal. The Court held that the acquittal by the High Court, based on the benefit of doubt, did not automatically exonerate the petitioner from departmental misconduct. Furthermore, the evidence indicated the petitioner had fabricated documents to cover his unauthorized absence. The Court affirmed that the police force requires strict discipline, and an officer who wanders without reporting for duty is unfit for retention, regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings based on the benefit of doubt automatically invalidate a departmental dismissal order?
  • Can a departmental authority dismiss an employee for misconduct even if the employee has been acquitted of related criminal charges?
  • Is an order of a departmental appellate authority liable to be set aside if it relies on a criminal conviction that was subsequently overturned?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab and others1990 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-05
  service lawdismissal from serviceconstitutional petitionspecial leave to appealAuqaf Department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Rafiq, an Ex-Qanoongo of the Auqaf Department, who was dismissed from service on 24 August 1982 for approving a faulty and fictitious survey report regarding a graveyard without proper verification. His departmental revision before the Secretary Auqaf and his subsequent constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court were both dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the dismissal order suffered from any error of law, breach of rules, or involved a question of public importance warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel was unable to point out any error of law, breach of rules, or refute the established charge, and no question of public importance was involved. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent decisions below.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant can be dismissed for approving an unverified survey report containing fictitious entries?
  • Does a petition against dismissal from service involving no error of law or public importance warrant leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Khan vs Miraj Din and 4 others1990 SCMR 439 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27
  specific performanceagreement to sellconcurrent findings of factleave to appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the concurrent dismissal of the petitioner's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land by the trial court, appellate court, and revisional court. The core legal question is whether the authenticity of the disputed agreement to sell was established and whether any substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the agreement to sell was not established as authentic and, finding no question of law involved against the concurrent findings of fact, refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution and authenticity of an agreement to sell where no substantial question of law is made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the authenticity of an agreement to sell?
  • Is leave to appeal granted when no substantial point of law is involved in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Asghar vs Prime Minister of Pakistan and 12 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 555 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and another vs The State1990 MLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Akhtar vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board WAPDA, Islamabad and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 191 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rab Nawaz Khan And Another vs The State1990 CLC 1949 · Board of Revenue · 1989-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Quadir Hussain vs Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of Pakistan and 2 others1990 MLD 11 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qayyum vs Talib Hussain and 7 others1990 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18
  leave to appealmurderreduction of sentencelife imprisonmentbenefit of doubtunlawful assemblyballistics expertocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal was instituted by petitioner Muhammad Qayyum against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning convictions and sentences arising from the murder of Khushal Khan. The trial court had convicted six accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the main accused Talib Hussain to death. On appeal, the High Court acquitted five co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt and lack of corroboration for ocular testimony. Consequently, the High Court set aside the application of unlawful assembly under Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, maintained Talib Hussain's conviction under Section 302, but reduced his sentence from death to life imprisonment due to uncertainty regarding which simultaneous shot was fatal. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the High Court's appraisal of the evidence warranted interference. Upholding the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court held that the evidence was thoroughly and properly evaluated on sound legal principles, declining leave to appeal and dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused renders convictions under Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 inapplicable against a remaining individual accused?
  • Can a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to life imprisonment when there is uncertainty regarding which of two simultaneous firing accused caused the fatal injury?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment where the appreciation of ocular and corroborative evidence is based on sound legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2036 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim alias Ganja vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 21 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-24
  quashment of proceedingsgood behaviour securitypreventive proceedingshabitual offendersdesperate and dangerous characterCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of preventive proceedings pending against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The core legal question was whether drug peddlars or persons with vague allegations of being quarrelsome or dangerous fall within the specific categories enumerated under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for good behaviour proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the object of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is preventive rather than punitive, and drug peddlars or persons accused of being merely quarrelsome or having vague allegations do not fall within the ambit of clauses (e) or (f) of the said provision. The court laid down the principle that the liberty of a subject cannot be jeopardized merely on a police report asserting that a person is a dangerous criminal without specific instances bringing the case within the mischief of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the quashment of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether drug peddlars fall within the categories of habitual offenders mentioned under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do vague allegations of a person being quarrelsome bring a case within the mischief of clause (e) of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does the period of security under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 commence in view of Section 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained merely on a police report opining that an individual is a dangerous criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar and others vs The State and others1990 P Cr. L J 99 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others1990 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30
  leave to appealservice tribunaldismissal from servicedepartmental inquiryacquittal in criminal trialsimultaneous proceedingsstandard of proofmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against an order of dismissal from service. The petitioner had been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for misconduct involving manhandling a witness, beating him, and depriving him of money, while his parallel criminal trial resulted in acquittal by the High Court. The core legal question was whether an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically vitiates or exonerates an employee from concurrent departmental proceedings based on similar allegations. The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings can continue simultaneously and independently of criminal trials, as there is no legal bar to doing so and the standard of proof differs. Furthermore, the departmental charges included specific elements not directly forming the subject-matter of the criminal trial, and an acquittal grounded on delay and proof beyond reasonable doubt does not impair the conclusiveness of a valid departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court consequently refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether acquittal in a criminal trial automatically results in exoneration from departmental proceedings based on similar charges?
  • Does a departmental inquiry share the same standard of proof as a criminal trial?
  • Can departmental disciplinary proceedings be initiated and continued simultaneously without waiting for the outcome of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 899 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1990 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-07
  leave to appealmurderocular evidencecorroborationforensic science laboratoryweapon recoverydeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his criminal appeal and confirmed his death sentence for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence and corroborative forensic evidence regarding the identification of the accused and the recovery of the weapon. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt based on credible eye-witness accounts—corroborated by the matching of a crime-empty recovered from the spot with the petitioner's licensed gun as confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory—were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that ocular testimony, even from related or allegedly inimical witnesses, when corroborated by reliable forensic evidence such as the matching of crime empties with the recovered weapon of the accused, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of related and inimical witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does the matching of a crime-empty with the recovered gun of the accused provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court warrant interference under leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazim vs Mst. Rehana Parveen Begum and 3 others1990 MLD 344 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-12
  ex parte decreeconstitutional jurisdictionmaintenanceservice of processconcurrent findings of factVakalatnamadivorce
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a family suit for maintenance. The petitioner alleged that he had not engaged the counsel who represented him in the original suit and that the Vakalatnama was a forgery. The lower courts, however, found the petitioner's signatures on the process and legal documents to be genuine, noting that the petitioner failed to take any action against the alleged fraudulent counsel or the plaintiff. The High Court held that the petitioner's failure to pursue remedies against the counsel or raise the issue of service of process in earlier forums constituted vital circumstantial evidence negating his claims. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of signatures and service of process are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction unless perverse. While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that the respondent's entitlement to maintenance ceased upon the effective date of divorce under the relevant family law, limiting the execution of the decree accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of signatures in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to take action against an allegedly fraudulent counsel constitute circumstantial evidence against a claim of non-representation?
  • Is a wife entitled to maintenance under a decree after the divorce has become effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • If a statute provides multiple modes of service of process, is effective service in any of those modes sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1990 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationculpable homicideappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Nawaz against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for killing his wife and her paramour after allegedly finding them in a compromising position. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly re-appraised the evidence to set aside the trial court's finding of grave and sudden provocation and whether the sentence awarded was appropriate. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the submissions regarding the appraisal of evidence and the nature of the provocation require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that inferences drawn by an appellate court regarding premeditation and provocation must be firmly rooted in a proper appraisal of the evidence and circumstances on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's finding of sudden and grave provocation based on the evidence on record?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries necessarily negative the existence of sudden and grave provocation?
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to a reduced sentence under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1990 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-17
  criminal petitionleave to appealculpable homicidereappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingssupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence under section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Ghulam Shah. The petitioner was originally tried by the Sessions Judge, Attock, convicted, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no question of law of public importance was raised and declining to undertake a reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally reappraise evidence in a criminal petition where concurrent findings of lower courts are challenged and no substantial question of law of public importance is involved.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal petition against concurrent findings of lower courts?
  • Does a petition challenging concurrent factual findings without raising a question of law of public importance warrant leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Sultan Mehmood and 4 others1990 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Member, Colonies and others1990 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-21
  constitutional petitionspecial leave to appealcancellation of allotmentlimitationlachesGrow More Food Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Constitution petition challenging the cancellation of his State land allotment. The core legal question concerns the condonation of delay and laches in pursuing remedies against the termination of a land allotment under the Grow More Food Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing his revision petition before the Board of Revenue and took nearly two years to approach the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, rendering the petition unfit for interference. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay and lack of vigilance in pursuing appellate, revisional, and constitutional remedies disentitle a litigant to discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue bars relief in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a delay of two years in approaching the High Court after the dismissal of a revision petition constitute fatal laches?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to special leave to appeal when there is no satisfactory explanation for failing to pursue remedies within the prescribed limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs District Judge Rahimyar Khan And Other1990 CLC 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Chief Engineer, Coordination (Water), WAPDA1990 PLC (C.S.) 280 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Allah Diwaya And 3 Other1990 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Afsaruddin and others1990 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-17
  leave to appealacquittalright of private defenseforcible dispossessionre-appraisal of evidencetrespasscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were initially convicted by a Magistrate for their involvement in a quarrel over the possession of a property, where the complainant party attempted to forcibly dispossess the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and its subsequent acquittal of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings, which established that the complainant party were trespassers and the respondents acted within their rights to defend their possession, were supported by the evidence on record. The Court affirmed that it does not normally undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in such petitions absent clear misreading or illegality. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that a person in possession of property is entitled to defend it against forcible dispossession, provided the force used does not exceed legal limits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court normally undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  • Is a person in possession of property entitled to use force to prevent forcible dispossession by a trespasser?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the evidence establishes that the complainant party were the initial aggressors and trespassers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Toor and another vs Government of the Punjab1990 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-02
  departmental proceedingsdisciplinary actionservice tribunalwithholding of incrementsnatural justiceenquiry reportleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, teachers in nationalized institutions, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioners had been subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings regarding charges of absenteeism and poor academic performance, resulting in the withholding of four increments and the treatment of their suspension period as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioners challenged the proceedings on two legal grounds: first, that the Authorised Officer failed to personally deal with the case or submit specific recommendations for a major penalty, thereby prejudicing the petitioners; and second, that one of the charges was vague. The Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings, having been reopened to provide the petitioners with the enquiry report, were conducted fairly. The Court found that the Authorised Officer’s referral to the Authority for determination of punishment, including potential major penalties, was procedurally sound and did not prejudice the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim of vagueness regarding the charges, noting the petitioners had provided full explanations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the legal grounds raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an Authorised Officer to personally impose a minor penalty or submit a specific recommendation for a major penalty invalidate departmental proceedings?
  • Can a party claim a charge is vague in departmental proceedings if they have already provided a full explanation in response to that charge?
  • Is a petitioner prejudiced if they are provided with the enquiry report and given an opportunity to show cause before the Authority determines the punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Others vs Pir Bakhsh And Other1990 CLC 1968 · Board of Revenue · 1989-08-07
  consolidation of holdingsrecord of rightsmutationrevenue administrationjurisdiction of consolidation authoritiessummary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns a dispute over land ownership and consolidation proceedings in village Thul Wazir Khan. The core legal question was whether a mutation sanctioned in 1945, which was never incorporated into the periodical record or record of rights, could serve as a valid basis for altering ownership records during consolidation proceedings forty years later. The Board of Revenue held that mutations are summary proceedings and cannot resolve complex questions of title or fact, especially when contradicting long-standing entries in the record of rights. The Board emphasized that consolidation authorities possess a limited, temporary mandate and must rely on existing revenue records rather than adjudicating disputed titles. Consequently, the Board set aside the orders of the lower authorities that had recognized the 1945 mutation, ruling that such disputes regarding the validity of historical mutations must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, which has the authority to frame issues and evaluate evidence. The principle established is that revenue authorities, particularly in consolidation, cannot override decades of established record of rights based on un-entered mutations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mutation sanctioned but never entered in the record of rights be used to alter ownership records during consolidation proceedings?
  • Do consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of historical mutations that contradict long-standing entries in the record of rights?
  • Is a mutation considered a conclusive determination of title in revenue proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Muhammad Aslam and others1990 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pre-emption suitcourt-fee deficiencylimitation periodleave to appealcompetent courtnew plea
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning a sale mutation dated 20-4-1974. The suit was instituted on 15-4-1975. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding it time-barred because the court-fee deficiency was made up after the prescribed period. The first appellate court reversed this decision, and the High Court maintained the decree in second appeal. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, raising two grounds: first, that the suit was initially filed in an incompetent court and became time-barred by the time it reached the competent court; and second, that the plaintiffs failed to supply the court-fee deficiency within the limitation period, relying on case law regarding net assets. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Regarding the first ground, the Court held it could not be raised for the first time at the leave stage as it involved unexplored factual content. Regarding the second ground, the Court held that the issue was settled by the authoritative pronouncement in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289), leaving no scope for the petitioners' argument.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a plea involving unexplored factual content for the first time at the leave to appeal stage?
  • Does the failure to make up court-fee deficiency within the limitation period automatically render a pre-emption suit time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State and others1990 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-03
  special leave to appealmurder chargeocular evidencemedical evidencesentence enhancementtime-barred petitioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves two separate petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-11-1988, one filed by the convict seeking acquittal from the murder charge and the other by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life to death. The core legal questions pertain to the appreciation of ocular versus medical evidence regarding pellet injuries allegedly caused by a pistol, and the condonation of a 443-day delay in filing the complainant's petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convict to examine the material contradiction between the ocular version and the medical evidence, while dismissing the complainant's petition as being heavily time-barred by 443 days and devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon used warrant a detailed examination by the court, and an inordinate delay without sufficient cause is fatal to a petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the ocular version and medical evidence regarding pellet injuries warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Can a petition for special leave to appeal barred by 443 days be entertained without sufficient cause?
  • Whether the High Court erred in commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life based on the evidence presented?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs Inayat Muhammad and another1990 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28
  special leave to appealconcurrent findings of factgift deedburden of proofappellate interferencecivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' regular second appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a disputed land gift. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred by failing to record a specific finding on an issue regarding the validity of a gift deed, which the petitioners alleged was fictitious. The Supreme Court examined the record and observed that although an issue regarding the fictitious nature of the gift was framed, it was never urged or brought to the attention of the lower appellate courts by the petitioners' counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out, as the trial court had already established valid findings of fact regarding the existence of the gift, which were affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that parties cannot seek appellate interference on issues that were not actively pursued or argued before the courts below.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek appellate relief on an issue that was framed but never argued or brought to the attention of the lower courts?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift?
  • Is a failure to explicitly record a finding on an issue fatal to a judgment if that issue was not pursued by the parties during the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 9 others vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And 6 Others vs Muhammad Nawaz And Another1990 CLC 1880 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim Qureshi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-27
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powershabitual criminalvague allegationscriminal procedureSindh Crimes Control Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nazimabad, Karachi, initiated upon a police report under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, alleging the applicant to be a habitual drunkard, pimp, and goonda. The core legal question was whether vague and general allegations without specific instances of time, date, and place justify proceedings against an individual under the Sindh Crimes Control Act. The Sindh High Court held that the allegations were indeed vague, that pending sub judice cases without prior conviction do not warrant such proceedings against the applicant, and that no grounds existed under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the pending proceedings. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act cannot be sustained on vague and general allegations lacking specific particulars of time, date, and place, especially in the absence of previous convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act be initiated on vague and general allegations without specific instances of time, date, and place?
  • Whether pending sub judice cases without a previous conviction can form a valid basis for proceedings against an individual as a hardened criminal?
  • Does the High Court have the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds under the Sindh Crimes Control Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim Akhtar vs The State1990 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-30
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptiondecoy witnesstainted moneyleave to appealsettlement patwari
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench dated 16th April 1989, which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner, a Settlement Patwari, was tried and convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for accepting illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 200 from a complainant for entering a redemption mutation. The core legal question raised was whether the receipt of tainted money by the petitioner, allegedly on behalf of another person where the raiding party did not overhear the conversation, constitutes the charged offense. The Supreme Court held that the very act of receiving the illegal gratification amounted to the commission of the offense, especially as the tainted money was recovered from his person. The court refused leave to appeal, holding that the cited precedents were distinguishable and the petition lacked merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the receipt of tainted money by a public servant constitute an offense under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 even if the money was allegedly intended for another person?
  • Is a conviction sustainable for accepting illegal gratification when the raiding party did not overhear the conversation between the decoy witness and the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Khan And Another vs Government of N. W.F.P.1990 CLC 1693 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-25
  writ jurisdictionalternative remedyco-operative societieslachesrevisional jurisdictionsupersession of boardexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, N.W.F.P., which superseded the Board of Directors of the Frontier Provincial Co-operative Bank and appointed an Administrator. The petitioners contended that the order was mala fide, lacked proper notice, and was issued without legal authority. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an alternative, adequate remedy exists under the governing statute. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, provides a comprehensive revisional remedy to the Provincial Government, which the petitioners failed to exhaust. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition suffered from laches, having been filed significantly after the impugned order. The key principle laid down is that where a statute creates a right and provides a specific forum and procedure for its enforcement, the High Court will generally decline to exercise writ jurisdiction until such alternative, efficacious remedies have been exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative remedy is available under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
  • Does the term 'proceedings' in the context of revisional jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 encompass the administrative actions of the Registrar?
  • Can the High Court decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction if a petitioner fails to exhaust the statutory remedy provided by the relevant special law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem and others vs Proprietor, National Glass Bangles1990 PLC 466 · Labour Court · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem alias Gogi and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-06
  capital punishmentocular evidenceinterested witnessescorroborationforensic evidencealibiburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from convictions for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on ocular testimony from interested and related witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that because the eyewitnesses were deeply connected to the deceased and had a history of enmity with the accused, their testimony required independent corroboration. The Court acquitted most appellants, finding no such corroboration for them. However, it upheld the conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Naeem alias Gogi, as his ocular testimony was corroborated by forensic evidence linking his recovered sten-gun to crime scene empties. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case independently; an accused’s failure to prove a defense, such as an alibi, cannot be used to establish guilt or shift the burden of proof. Furthermore, forensic ballistic reports serve as vital corroborative evidence when ocular accounts are otherwise insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi shift the burden of proof to the accused?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction in a capital case without independent corroboration?
  • Can forensic ballistic reports serve as sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony in murder cases?
  • Does the opinion of police officers regarding the innocence of certain accused during investigation carry evidentiary weight in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi vs The Secretary, Establishment Division and others1990 SCMR 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-11
  service and seniorityad hoc appointmentwork-charge appointmentregularization of serviceService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Service Tribunal regarding a service and seniority dispute between Assistant Engineers in the Northern Area. The core legal question concerns whether appointments made in the capacity of work-charge or ad hoc basis, subsequently brought onto a permanent footing, entitle the incumbents to count their previous service for the purpose of seniority over a later appointee. The Supreme Court observed that the question is not free from difficulty and disposed of the matter at the preliminary stage by issuing notice to the respondents to appear and explain the authority supporting the Service Tribunal's findings on regularization and seniority. The key principle noted is that initial ad hoc or work-charge service regularised from a specific past date raises complex legal questions regarding the computation of seniority that require detailed examination of the underlying rules and factual basis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments made on a work-charge or ad hoc basis can be counted for the purpose of seniority upon regularization?
  • Does regularization of posts from a past date entitle employees to count their previous service for all purposes including seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi vs Secretary Establishment and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 56 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustaqeem and 11 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustafa and 3 others vs Muhammad Akbar and others1990 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30
  pre-emptionpre-emption decreeShariat Appellate Benchlimitation of lawSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three pre-emption petitions sharing a common question regarding the effect of the judgment delivered by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah. The core legal question is whether a pre-emption decree can be passed under the old pre-emption law after it ceased to have effect. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners had not succeeded in obtaining a pre-emption decree at any stage before 31st July 1986—the date the old law ceased to have effect pursuant to the aforementioned judgment—no decree under that law can be passed in their favour. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption decree be passed under the old pre-emption law after 31st July 1986 if the plaintiff had not secured a decree before that date?
  • What is the effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah on pending pre-emption suits without a prior decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq and another vs Muhammad Arif alias Shana and others1990 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18
  criminal appealleave to appealappreciation of evidencecorroboration of evidencecommutation of sentencemurder convictionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partially acquitted co-accused persons and commuted the death sentence of the primary convict, Muhammad Arif, to imprisonment for life in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the acquittal of two co-accused and the commutation of the sentence for the primary convict. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s findings were based on a sound evaluation of the evidence, noting that the testimony of eye-witnesses, while credible, required corroboration due to their relationship with the deceased and their alleged prior misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that it would not re-appraise evidence where the lower court's reasoning was legally sound and free from misreading of evidence. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the factual findings of a High Court in criminal appeals absent a clear error of law or misreading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal when the High Court's findings are based on a sound evaluation of the record?
  • Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony necessary when the witnesses are related to the deceased and have a history of alleged misconduct?
  • Can a sentence of death be commuted to imprisonment for life if the convict acted under the influence of an elder brother and lacked a direct motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs The State1990 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-08
  criminal appealunlicensed armsrecovery of rifleappreciation of evidencenew plea at supreme courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, along with a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of an unlicensed rifle from the possession of the petitioner during a police raid. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts were founded on proper and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a new plea regarding alleged discrepancies in recovery evidence, which was neither raised at the trial nor before the High Court, cannot be entertained for the first time before the apex court. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a new plea regarding discrepancies in recovery evidence be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the possession of an unlicensed weapon warrant interference when based on proper evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munshi And Another vs Mst. Rakiya Bi1990 CLC 301 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-11-30
  pre-emptionVakalatnamacurable irregularityratification of agencysigning and verification of pleadingsmarket price of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil judgment from the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir addresses counter-appeals arising from a pre-emption suit where the trial court dismissed the suit due to an alleged forged thumb-impression on the Vakalatnama, while the lower appellate court decreed the suit. The core legal questions involved whether defects or alleged forgery regarding a Vakalatnama, signatures, and verification of pleadings constitute incurable illegalities warranting dismissal, and how market price is established in pre-emption claims. The High Court held that procedural omissions or defects in a Vakalatnama or pleadings are merely curable irregularities rather than fatal illegalities, and that a principal can ratify an agent or counsel's acts retrospectively, especially when the client affirms the engagement. Furthermore, the court held that a pre-emptor challenging a sale price as fictitious must prove that comparable sales involved land of identical quality to displace the presumption arising from the registered sale-deed and Sub-Registrar endorsement. The court dismissed both appeals, maintaining the decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a proper signature or alleged forgery on a Vakalatnama constitutes an incurable illegality resulting in the dismissal of a suit?
  • Can a principal ratify the actions of a counsel or agent with retrospective effect?
  • Whether the rules governing the appointment of a pleader under Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directory or mandatory?
  • Is a pre-emptor required to prove that comparable sale-deeds pertain to land of identical quality to successfully challenge a recorded sale price?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Ahmad vs Water and Power Development Authority1990 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25
  service appealdismissal from servicefindings of factnew plea at appellate stageleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal upholding his dismissal from service for misconduct involving unauthorized installation of meters and failure to recover consumer dues. The core legal questions relate to whether a mixed question of fact and law regarding the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, and whether concurrent findings of fact by departmental authorities and the Tribunal are open to interference. The Supreme Court held that a new legal question requiring factual resolution cannot be permitted to be raised at the belated stage of the Supreme Court, and that concurrent findings of fact suffering from no legal infirmity warrant no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down the principle that mixed questions of fact and law not raised before lower forums cannot be entertained for the first time.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mixed question of fact and law be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without showing legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa vs The Government of Sind and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mithal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 999 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen and another vs The State and another1990 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehtab vs Muhammad Ismail and another1990 MLD 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maskin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 590 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maqsood vs WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 2 others1990 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11
  service tribunalremoval from serviceenhancement of penaltydepartmental appealleave to appealillegal gratification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service by WAPDA. The petitioner was initially charge-sheeted for corruption, leading to an inquiry and an initial penalty of reduction in rank and forfeiture of certain dues. Subsequently, after the rejection of his departmental appeal by the Chairman WAPDA, the authority issued a second show-cause notice seeking to enhance the punishment, ultimately resulting in the petitioner's removal from service. The core legal question is whether an already concluded penalty, following the rejection of a departmental appeal, can be reviewed and enhanced against an employee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of enhancing a finalized punishment after the conclusion of departmental appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether on account of rejection of departmental appeal against the penalty imposed on an employee, the same can be reviewed or enhanced against the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad vs Commissioner, Multan Division and others1990 SCMR 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12
  service matterPatwaridepartmental inquirydismissal from servicere-appreciation of evidencesubstantial question of lawrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Patwari from service following a departmental inquiry regarding unauthorized interpolations in the Revenue Record. The petitioner challenged his dismissal, arguing that his alterations to the record were merely corrections of erroneous entries, a defense rejected by both the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the departmental inquiry and the Service Tribunal warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's contention essentially amounted to a request for the re-appreciation of evidence, which does not constitute a substantial question of law of public importance. The Court affirmed that in the absence of a significant legal issue, it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-examine factual determinations in service matters absent a substantial question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a challenge to the appreciation of evidence in a departmental inquiry constitute a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik vs Muhammad Hussain and others1990 PLD Lahore 386 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Khan and 4 others vs Additional Settlement1990 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-27
  land settlementexcess allotmentresumption of landconstitutional jurisdictionproduce index unitssuccessors-in-interestrefugee claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the allotment of land to a refugee claimant, Mst. Hasso, and the subsequent challenge by the successors-in-interest of the original informant. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioners, as successors-in-interest of the informant, possessed a vested right to continue the proceedings, and whether excess allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, are mandatorily resumable by law, leaving no scope for judicial discretion. The Supreme Court found that while the High Court's reasoning regarding the petitioners' status and the non-resumability of excess land was flawed, the dismissal of the writ petition was ultimately justified. The Court held that the appellants failed to establish that the land in question was excluded from the benefits of the 1956 correction slip, a factual determination made by departmental authorities that could not be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, establishing that factual findings regarding land classification and entitlement made by competent departmental authorities are generally final in constitutional proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a question of fact regarding land classification be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse the resumption of excess land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Are the successors-in-interest of an informant entitled to continue legal proceedings regarding land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Bhatti vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board (E), WAPDA, Gujranwala and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 810 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and others vs Fazal Haq and another1990 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The Agricultural Engineer and 2 others1990 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Allah Rakha1990 CLC 1980 · Board of Revenue · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Engineering, Larkana Division, Larkana and 2 others1990 PLC 428 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khaleel vs Muhammad Yousaf and others1990 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-20
  leave to appealcommutation of sentencemurder convictionacquittaldiscretionary powerenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal trial where the respondent was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death by the trial court, while two co-accused were acquitted. On appeal, the Lahore High Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment and enhanced the fine. The complainant filed a revision petition against the acquittal of the co-accused, which the High Court dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the commutation of the sentence and the acquittal of the co-accused. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the High Court's discretion in commuting the sentence was neither whimsical nor arbitrary. The Court determined that the case did not involve a 'wanton murder' warranting the enhancement of the sentence to death. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, concluding that it was not a fit case for granting leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's discretion to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment is subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a case involving the murder of an individual automatically warrant a death sentence, or is the nature of the murder a relevant factor for sentencing?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a High Court's judgment in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif Kamal Siddiqui vs Mirza Farooq Baig1990 MLD 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-01
  ejectment applicationpersonal bona fide needlandlord-tenant relationshipestoppelattornmentoral giftrent controller jurisdictionmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order dismissing an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default and personal bona fide need. The appellant claimed ownership via an alleged oral gift from his father. The core legal questions were whether the appellant, as a purported donee, could maintain an eviction application for personal need, and whether the tenant was estopped from challenging the landlord's title after having previously paid rent. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Rent Controller’s finding that the alleged gift was a mala fide device to secure eviction, as the father had previously litigated for the same property without disclosing any transfer. The Court held that an eviction application based on personal need is maintainable only by the owner. Furthermore, it established that while attornment generally creates an estoppel, a tenant is not precluded from challenging the landlord's title if such attornment was induced by misrepresentation or ignorance of the true facts regarding ownership. The Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to scrutinize the genuineness of title claims central to the maintainability of eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord maintain an eviction application on the ground of personal need if the landlord is not the owner of the premises?
  • Is a tenant estopped from challenging a landlord's title if the attornment was made under a misrepresentation of ownership?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to examine the genuineness of an alleged gift of property when determining the maintainability of an eviction application?
  • Can a person who is not the owner of the property maintain an eviction application under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Rashid vs The Chief Engineer, 0 & M, WAPDA, Tarbela1990 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  leave to appealservice appealprobationer terminationback benefitsshow-cause noticeFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the termination of service of a probationer employee. The core legal question concerns the legality of terminating a probationer's service during an extended probation period without a show-cause notice based on an adverse police report, and the entitlement to back benefits upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court observed that both members of the Tribunal agreed the termination during the extended probation period without a show-cause notice and based on an erroneous police report was illegal, though they differed on the award of back benefits. The Court held that the contention regarding the petitioner's clean antecedents and entitlement to back benefits warrants consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a probationer's service during an extended period of probation without a show-cause notice is illegal?
  • Is an employee whose termination is declared illegal entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement?
  • Whether an adverse police report can form the sole basis for terminating the service of a probationer without inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Qureshi vs Chief Engineer and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 508 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Mughal vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department and others1990 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-09
  leave to appealservice tribunalwillful absenceemployment terminationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 7-6-1981, which had dismissed the appellant's grievance regarding his employment status. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to challenge the Tribunal's finding that he had been afforded ample opportunity to resume his duties but had willfully chosen to remain absent. Upon reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court questioned the appellant's counsel regarding the factual basis for challenging this specific observation made by the Tribunal. The counsel failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or justification for the appellant's prolonged absence despite the opportunities provided by the employer. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no valid ground for leave to appeal was established. The principle laid down is that where a service tribunal has recorded a finding of fact regarding a public servant's willful absence after being given ample opportunity to resume duty, and the appellant fails to controvert such findings, leave to appeal will not be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a finding by a Service Tribunal that an employee was given ample opportunity to resume duty constitute a valid basis for dismissing an appeal?
  • Is leave to appeal granted when a petitioner fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for willful absence from duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 740 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya vs Ghulam Ahmad, Sessions Judge, Attock and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 820 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir Khan Go Raya vs Ghulam Ahmad, Sessions Judge, Attock and AnotherK.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 316 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →