Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Aziz Muhammad vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 494 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
- Aziz Khaliq vs Settlement Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding the transfer of property. The dispute arose after the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred a property unit to the respondent, who subsequently entered into an agreement of association with the petitioner specifying a particular mode of division for the property. Although the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the agreement, the resulting provisional transfer order failed to adhere to the agreed-upon division. The petitioner's attempts to rectify this through administrative revisions and constitutional litigation were unsuccessful, leading to the current petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the Settlement authorities were legally obligated to align the provisional transfer order with the terms of an accepted agreement of association. Upon examination, the Supreme Court found that the contention regarding the failure to adhere to the agreed mode of division required further judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the administrative action taken by the Settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Is a Deputy Settlement Commissioner bound to issue a provisional transfer order in accordance with the terms of an accepted agreement of association?
- Does the failure of a Settlement authority to adhere to an agreement of association in a transfer order constitute a reviewable error?
- Aziz alias Kala vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
- Aziz Ahmed vs Karachi Municipal Corporation through Mayor of Karachi1990 PLC (.C.S.) 16 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Azim Gul vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
- Azam Shah vs The State1990 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Bank Manager, challenged his conviction for criminal breach of trust, forgery, and cheating regarding the misappropriation of funds from his branch. The petitioner argued that the trial was vitiated by the misjoinder of charges, contending that offences under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could not be tried alongside forgery and cheating offences. The Supreme Court examined the procedural legality of the trial, specifically focusing on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the joinder of charges. The Court held that the trial was conducted properly, as the acts were sufficiently connected to form the same transaction under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that the joinder of charges is permissible when acts are connected by unity, continuity, and community of purpose. Furthermore, the Court found no prejudice caused to the accused by the concurrent sentences imposed. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can offences of criminal breach of trust be tried together with offences of forgery and cheating in a single trial?
- What criteria determine whether a series of acts constitute the 'same transaction' for the purpose of joinder of charges?
- Does the joinder of multiple charges in a single trial necessarily vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the accused?
- Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad1990 MLD 2333 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-08-11Read full judgment →
- Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad1990 MLD 930 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
- Awed Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Raja M. Zaheer-Ul-Hassan and 3 others1990 PLC 238 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
- Awami Autos Employees Union vs Awami Autos Limited1990 PLC 672 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
- Avdhesh Kumar Jain vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 652 · Allahabad High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Aurengzeb vs The State1990 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal against conviction and a revision for enhancement under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased by a firearm injury. The core legal question involved the reappraisal of evidence to determine whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the presence of the purported eyewitness was highly doubtful, the ocular account was contradicted by physical and medical evidence including the place of bloodstaining and range of firing, and the occurrence was an unseen crime where the accused had been charged on suspicion. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between the ocular testimony and the circumstantial and medical evidence, creating reasonable doubt as to the presence of eyewitnesses, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and circumstantial or medical evidence are sufficient to render the presence of an eyewitness doubtful?
- Does the absence of blood at the alleged spot of crime and its presence elsewhere contradict the prosecution's version of events?
- Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when the crime is shown to be an unseen occurrence based on mere suspicion?
- Aurangzeb vs Muhammad Sadiq and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, in a murder case. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of ocular evidence, forensic reports, and the credibility of recovery witnesses. The High Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence. Specifically, the court ruled that the trial judge unjustifiably discarded recovery witnesses without assessing their character, and that minor discrepancies regarding the distance of firing and the side of injury do not invalidate ocular testimony, as such events occur in split seconds. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the trial judge failed to consider the forensic report linking the accused’s licensed pistol to the crime scene, which was pivotal. The court clarified that witnesses related to the deceased are not 'interested' unless they possess a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.
Questions settled- Are witnesses related to the deceased automatically considered 'interested witnesses' in a criminal trial?
- Does a minor discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a trial court's failure to consider forensic evidence linking a weapon to the crime scene constitute grounds for setting aside an acquittal and ordering a retrial?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to reject recovery witnesses solely because they are not from the immediate locality?
- Aurangzeb Khan And 9 Others vs Ghulam Mustafa Khan1990 CLC 1838 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb and 4 others vs The State and others1990 SCMR 1050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court which cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution case involved an armed attack at night resulting in a fatality and injuries, with identification of the accused made in the moonlight. The petitioners contended that the High Court misapplied the law on bail by requiring positive proof of innocence, and pointed out that the injured witnesses had not recognized their assailants during the investigation. Additionally, the medical evidence indicated the use of different weapons, which was inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative, and the investigation had been conducted by two different agencies with conflicting statements. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the general nature of the allegations, the lack of identification by the injured witnesses, and the discrepancies in the medical and investigative evidence made the petitioners' involvement a matter of further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be cancelled where the injured witnesses failed to identify the accused during the investigation?
- Does a conflict in medical evidence regarding the dimensions of injuries and the weapons used justify the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the High Court correct in requiring material showing the accused is not guilty as a prerequisite for maintaining bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Attiq Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Attaur Rehman vs Inspector-General of Police and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-16Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad vs Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management1990 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Forest Guard, challenged his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings. After his initial removal was set aside by the Punjab Service Tribunal due to the incompetence of the removing authority, fresh proceedings were initiated. In these new proceedings, the authorized officer dispensed with a regular inquiry, issued a show-cause notice, and subsequently recommended dismissal, which was upheld by the Authority and the Service Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the authorized officer could not dispense with a regular inquiry once a charge sheet had been served and that the nature of the case necessitated a full-fledged inquiry. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 6(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the authorized officer has the discretion to dispense with an inquiry. Since the initial proceedings were set aside, the authorized officer was entitled to exercise this option afresh. Furthermore, the Court found that relying on inspection notes from senior officers regarding illicit grazing and tree damage did not constitute arbitrary action. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an authorized officer exercise the option to dispense with a regular inquiry afresh in new disciplinary proceedings if the previous proceedings were set aside?
- Does the authorized officer have the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Is the decision to dispense with a regular inquiry considered arbitrary when based on inspection notes from senior officers?
- Atta Muhammad vs Aziz Gul and another1990 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Shah Muhammad1990 SCMR 1635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of a portion of an Ihata (plot) in a Colony Chak. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Atta Muhammad, had originally acquired proprietary rights to 2/3rd of Ihata No. 59 following the death of his father, Ali Bakhsh. The remaining 1/3rd portion, designated as Ihata No. 59/2, was subsequently allotted to the respondent, Shah Muhammad. The appellants challenged this allotment, claiming entitlement to the entire plot. The core legal question was whether the appellants, having voluntarily limited their proprietary acquisition to 2/3rd of the plot and accepted the separation of the remaining portion, could subsequently claim the remaining 1/3rd as a matter of right. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants’ predecessor had, by his own actions of paying for and securing title to only 2/3rd of the property and allowing the separation of the remaining portion, effectively confined his claim. The Court established the principle that a party who voluntarily accepts the division of property and limits their proprietary claim cannot later assert a right to the portion they previously excluded.
Questions settled- Can an heir who voluntarily limits their proprietary claim to a specific portion of an allotted plot subsequently claim the remaining portion?
- Does the separation of an allotted plot into distinct portions, accepted by the original claimant, preclude a later claim to the excluded portion?
- Is a party entitled to challenge the allotment of government land to a third party after having previously acquiesced to the division of that land?
- Atta Hussain and others vs The State1990 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by three individuals, Atta Hussain, Fida Hussain, and Manzoor Bakhsh, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their appeal against conviction. The core legal question presented is whether a significant discrepancy between the prosecution's narrative—alleging multiple head injuries caused by specific weapons—and the medical evidence—which recorded only a single incised wound on the deceased's head—constitutes a material contradiction sufficient to undermine the prosecution's case and warrant acquittal. The petitioners argued that the High Court acknowledged this contradiction regarding the nature of the injuries but failed to grant the petitioners the benefit of the doubt, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court found that the contention regarding the medical evidence's inconsistency with the prosecution's version of events was substantial and required deeper judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the resulting conviction.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the prosecution's narrative of multiple injuries and the medical report showing a single injury constitute a material contradiction?
- Is a petitioner entitled to acquittal when the medical evidence falsifies the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to properly weigh a significant contradiction in medical evidence constitute a miscarriage of justice?
- Atlas Autos Limited vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1990 PLC 373 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Atlas Autos Limited, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court to challenge an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the dismissal of respondent No. 2 and ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits. Respondent No. 2 was dismissed from service following a domestic inquiry for allegedly refusing to receive a charge-sheet, a suspension letter, and subsequent notices, which the management treated as misconduct. The core legal question was whether an employee's refusal to receive a charge-sheet or communication from the employer constitutes 'wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior' or an act subversive of discipline under Standing Order 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court held that refusal to receive a charge-sheet does not fall under clause (a) or clause (h) of Standing Order 15(3) and cannot be construed as wilful insubordination or an act subversive of discipline warranting dismissal. The constitutional petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee's refusal to receive a charge-sheet constitutes wilful insubordination or disobedience under Standing Order 15(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the refusal by a workman to accept a written communication or charge-sheet from his employer amount to an act subversive of discipline under Standing Order 15(3)(h)?
- Can an employer lawfully dismiss an employee for refusing to accept service of departmental notices without such act falling under the enumerated categories of misconduct?
- Atlas Autos Limited and others vs National Industrial Relations1990 PLC (C.S.) 369 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Atlas Autos Limited and 5 others vs National Industrial Relations1990 PLD Karachi 362 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment by the Sindh High Court disposes of five constitutional petitions challenging proceedings initiated before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under section 22-A(8)(g) read with section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on the ground that the Commission was not properly constituted at the relevant time. The core legal questions involved whether the NIRC can include part-time members, whether its functions are exclusively judicial, whether the appointment of members violated statutory provisions, and the application of the de facto doctrine to judicial appointments. The Court held that the functions of the Commission are three-fold comprising advisory, executive, and judicial powers, and that the appointment of part-time members is not prohibited and is in consonance with the spirit of the Ordinance. The Court further held that even if an appointment is defective, the de facto doctrine saves the judgments and actions of a tribunal member holding office under colour of lawful authority, preventing collateral attacks on judicial titles in litigation between private parties. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the functions of the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are exclusively judicial?
- Does the appointment of part-time members to the National Industrial Relations Commission violate section 22-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether the validity of the appointment of a judge or a member of a tribunal can be challenged collaterally in proceedings between private litigants?
- What is the legal effect of a defective appointment of a member of a tribunal under the de facto doctrine?
- Ata Rasool vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Jauharabad and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition seeking the recovery of a woman allegedly held in illegal detention by her father and local police. The core legal question concerned the accountability of a Superintendent of Police (S.P.) who failed to comply with repeated judicial orders to produce the detenue before the Supreme Court. The Court held that the S.P.’s conduct was highly irresponsible, characterized by a lack of diligence and disregard for judicial directives. By delegating the court-ordered task to subordinates without personal supervision, the S.P. failed in his official duty, contributing to the tragic death of the detenue. Consequently, the petition was rendered infructuous. The Court established that when a high court or the Supreme Court issues a specific directive to a public official, that official bears personal responsibility for ensuring compliance; delegating such duties to subordinates without active oversight constitutes a dereliction of duty. The Court directed the Inspector-General of Police to initiate remedial action against the negligent officer and ensure future adherence to judicial orders.
Questions settled- Can a public official delegate a specific court-ordered duty to subordinates without ensuring its execution?
- What is the scope of a police officer's responsibility when ordered by the Supreme Court to produce a detenue?
- Does the death of a detenue render a habeas corpus petition infructuous?
- Ata Muhammad vs Faiz Muhammad and another1990 P Cr. L J 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Asstt: Commissioner/Collector, Muzaffargarh Etc vs (Mst) AnwarK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 126 · Board of Revenue · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
- Assistant Director, Labour and Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad vs Naeem Ali Muhammad Munshi, Employer, Shalimar Food Products1990 PLC 609 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves fifty revision applications directed against the orders of the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, which dismissed fifty complaints filed by the Assistant Director Labour against an employer for violating Standing Order 2-A under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The trial court dismissed the complaints due to the non-appearance of the complainant and witnesses under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court could dismiss the complaints for non-prosecution under Section 247 Cr.P.C. considering the compoundable nature of offences under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that while offences under the Standing Orders Ordinance are treated as non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 36(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 makes them compoundable as a special law overriding general law. However, the Tribunal found no legal illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order under its revisional jurisdiction, though noting that the trial court could have alternatively proceeded by closing the complainant's side. The revision applications were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is compoundable under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a Labour Court dismiss a complaint for non-prosecution under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the compoundability of offences?
- What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Assistant Director (Admn.) National Savings Centre and others vs Muhammad Anwar1990 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal modifying a departmental penalty of removal from service imposed upon an Upper Division Clerk incharge at the National Savings Centre. The employee was charge-sheeted for temporary misappropriation of funds and explicitly admitted during the departmental inquiry to using the entrusted money for his own purpose. Before the Tribunal, the employee did not contest the merits of the case but merely sought a reduction in penalty; despite this, the Tribunal altered the finding to one of late posting of money in the register and reduced the penalty to stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the employee's explicit admission of misappropriation. Given the employee's role in a financial institution dealing with public funds, temporary misappropriation constituted serious misconduct justifying removal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the departmental order of removal from service.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Service Tribunal alter a finding of misappropriation to mere late posting when the employee explicitly admitted to using public funds for personal use?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can interfere with a departmental penalty of removal from service where charges of financial misappropriation against a public servant dealing with money are established on admission?
- Assessee vs I.T.O. Panel 01 Companies, Lahore.PTCL 1990 CL. 1103 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1990 CL. 588 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-09-14Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1990 CL. 539 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1990 CL. 227 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Asmat Ali Khan and 5 others vs Manzoor Ahmed and another1990 MLD 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Aslam Khurshid vs The Secretary, Establishment Division and others1990 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for a change of his service discipline/group from Chemistry to Physics. The petitioner, a government employee, argued that his acquisition of an M.Sc. degree in Physics entitled him to be reallocated to the Physics discipline with retrospective effect, citing his previous work experience and qualifications. The core legal question was whether the mere acquisition of higher academic qualifications during service creates a vested right for an employee to demand a change of their designated service group or discipline. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no such entitlement. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner belonged to the Metallurgy Laboratories, which fell under the Chemistry group, and that reallocating him would unjustifiably disrupt the seniority of other employees. The key principle laid down is that mere academic qualifications do not automatically entitle a civil servant to a change in their service discipline or group, especially when such a change would adversely affect the established seniority structure of the department.
Questions settled- Does the acquisition of higher academic qualifications during service create a vested right for a civil servant to be reallocated to a different service discipline?
- Can a civil servant demand a change of service group if such a change would disrupt the seniority of other employees?
- Is the decision of a department to deny a change of service discipline subject to interference if no violation of law is shown?
- Ashraf Hussain and others vs M. A. Haque, Chief Settlement Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the permanent allotment of 17-1/2 acres of urban agricultural land in Sillanwali, originally held by the appellants' predecessor-in-interest on a temporary basis. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to order the permanent allotment of this entire urban land area against the appellants' verified rural claims, despite prior judicial findings limiting their entitlement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to grant such an allotment, as the power to permit retention of urban land in excess of established ceilings against rural claims was exclusively vested in the Central Government. The Court affirmed that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity in law, and an authority may treat such an order as non-existent rather than reviewing it. Furthermore, general policy letters from the Central Government do not override specific ceilings fixed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner unless an individualized order is passed by the Central Government.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to permanently allot urban land against rural claims without an individualized order from the Central Government?
- Can an authority treat an order passed without jurisdiction as a nullity rather than reviewing it?
- Do general policy letters from the Central Government override specific land ceilings fixed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Ashraf alias Achhoo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1329 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Ashraf Ali Shah and 2 others vs The State and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ashok Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 80 · Kerala High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Ashnaghar vs Secretary Education, Government of NWFP, PeshawarK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 308 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Muhammad vs Riaz Hussain And Other1990 CLC 1952 · Board of Revenue · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain alias Babu and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 116 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Ali and 4 others vs The State1990 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and confirmed death sentences for certain accused individuals. The petitioners were originally tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. While the High Court acquitted one co-accused, it upheld the convictions and death sentences of the primary petitioners. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence against specific petitioners warranted a reappraisal to justify granting leave to appeal. Upon reviewing the evidence and the record, the Supreme Court held that the case against two specific petitioners required a re-examination of the evidence, thereby granting them leave to appeal. Conversely, the Court dismissed the petition regarding the remaining petitioners, as the case against them was deemed sufficiently proven. The principle established is that leave to appeal is granted when the evidence against specific accused persons requires a deeper reappraisal by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in a criminal case involving murder convictions?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court selectively grant leave to appeal to some co-accused while dismissing it for others?
- Asal Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 437 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Asad Ejaz Ahmad vs Rent Controller, Multan and 2 others1990 MLD 750 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Asad Ahmed Siddiqui vs Mst. Wilayati Begum through L.Rs1990 MLD 2247 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-12Read full judgment →
- Asad Abbas Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
- Arz Muhammad vs The Agricultural Engineer, Larkana1990 PLC 85 · Labour Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
- Arshad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Arshad Pervaiz vs The State1990 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his death sentence for a murder conviction under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves the evaluation of ocular testimony from an allegedly inimical witness and the evidentiary value of a delayed weapon recovery made ten months after the occurrence, alleged to be stained with human blood. The Supreme Court held that the delayed recovery and the contentious nature of the eyewitness testimony, where one key witness did not support the prosecution and the other was on inimical terms, constitute circumstances warranting further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these evidentiary aspects.
Questions settled- Does a delayed weapon recovery made several months after the occurrence create a case for further inquiry?
- Can the testimony of an eyewitness who is on inimical terms with the accused sustain a capital conviction without corroboration?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when material discrepancies and evidentiary weaknesses exist in the prosecution case?
- Arshad Iqbal Through L.Rs. vs Abdul Qayum Khan Babar1990 CLC 1183 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Arshad Begum and 2 others vs Municipal Committee, Jhelum1990 PLC 534 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-06Read full judgment →
- Army Welfare Food Industries vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 3 othersPTCL 1990 CL. 863 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Arif Saeed Paganwala vs The State1990 MLD 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
- Arif Masood Anwar Niazi vs Election Tribunal/District & Sessions1990 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an interlocutory order of the Lahore High Court, which admitted a writ petition challenging an Election Tribunal's decision but granted only partial interim relief. The petitioner, elected as a Member and subsequently Chairman of a Municipal Committee, was deseated by the Election Tribunal for being under the age of 25 at the time of nomination. While the High Court suspended the operation of the Tribunal's order regarding the petitioner's membership, the petitioner sought further relief, arguing that the partial suspension created an anomalous situation regarding his eligibility to re-contest the Chairman election. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the interim relief granted. It held that while there was prima facie merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the respondent's lack of locus standi to challenge the membership election, this did not invalidate the Tribunal's factual finding concerning the petitioner's age. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's interim order but directed the High Court to prioritize the disposal of the main writ petition within two months to resolve the underlying controversy.
Questions settled- Can an Election Tribunal unseat a member of a local council if the election petition was filed by a person lacking locus standi?
- Does the suspension of an order deseating a local council member imply that the underlying factual findings regarding disqualification are infirm?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court regarding interim relief in an election dispute?
- Arfuat Textile Factory vs The Registrar of Trade Unions and another1990 PLC 37 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Arfaat Textile Factory vs The Registrar of Trade Unions and AnotherK.L.R 1990, Labour & Service Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Arbab Muhammad Tariq vs Election Tribunal, Peshawar And 3 Other1990 CLC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-01Read full judgment →
- Arbab Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 649 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the dismissal of an application for the release of currency seized by the F.I.A. from the residence of an accused charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question is whether a Criminal Court, acting under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is empowered to adjudicate complex questions of title or ownership regarding seized property during the pendency of a criminal trial. The Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court correctly refused to release the money. The key principle laid down is that Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is designed solely for regulating the interim custody of property produced before a court, not for determining disputed titles. Criminal courts lack the jurisdiction to resolve ownership claims, which must be decided by a competent Civil Court. While interim custody orders are judicial and discretionary, they cannot be used to bypass the necessity of establishing title through proper evidence in civil proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a Criminal Court have the jurisdiction to determine questions of title or ownership of property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the order for interim custody of property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
- Which forum is competent to adjudicate the ownership of property seized during a criminal investigation?
- Arbab Jehangir Khan And 11 Others vs Abdur Rauf Khan And Another1990 CLC 1601 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
- Aqeel Ahmad Siddiqui vs Water and Power Development Authority1990 PLC (C.S.) 222 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- Anwar Khattak vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 38 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
- Anwar Hussain vs The State1990 MLD 181 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Anwar And Others vs Sher Bahadur And Other1990 CLC 274 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for possession of agricultural land by reversing the trial court's decree. The core legal question revolves around whether the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Sher D.1, was a real brother or a consanguine brother of the deceased landowners, and the admissibility and evaluation of opinion evidence on relationship under Section 50 of the Evidence Act. The Lahore High Court held that the first appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence and that witnesses who are not family members must demonstrate special means of knowledge, whereas the testimony of a family member with direct knowledge—such as the widow of a predecessor—carries significant weight, particularly when left unchallenged in cross-examination. The court established that while family members or close friends are presumed to have special means of knowledge regarding relationship, outsiders or non-family witnesses must positively establish the foundational basis of their opinion through conduct, and the withholding of material primary witnesses draws an adverse inference.
Questions settled- Whether the opinion of a non-family witness regarding family relationship is admissible without establishing special means of knowledge under Section 50 of the Evidence Act?
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What is the evidentiary value of a material witness's testimony remaining un-cross-examined during trial?
- Does the withholding of a crucial witness by a party raise an adverse presumption against their case?
- Anwar Ahmad Lari and others vs The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1990 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the transfer of Flat No. 21, Hall Road, Lahore, to respondent No. 3 under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, while dismissing the petitioners' writ petition. The core legal question was whether Flat No. 21, having been previously transferred to the petitioners along with Flat No. 22 and covered by a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), remained available for transfer to a local under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court held that although the initial transfer of both flats to the petitioner contravened the law and the P.T.D. could technically be challenged, Flat No. 21 was a distinct and separate unit that could not validly be transferred to the occupant of Flat No. 22. Since the High Court's order was fair, just, and equitable, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will refuse to grant discretionary leave against a decision that achieves a just and equitable result, even if technical flaws exist in prior administrative actions.
Questions settled- Whether a property already transferred under a Permanent Transfer Deed can be transferred to another applicant under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Will the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against an order that is fair, just, and equitable despite technical irregularities?
- Are separate flats within a building considered distinct and separate units for the purpose of settlement laws?
- Ansar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 915 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Anno or Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Superintendent of Central Excise and1990 MLD 914 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Annoor Textile Mills Ltd vs The Superintendent Of Central Excise And LandPTCL 1990 CL. 884 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anjuman Masjid New Town vs Syed Muhammad Binhori1990 PLD Supreme Court 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision, which had upheld the recall and setting aside of ex parte proceedings. The defendant's counsel had failed to appear on the scheduled date, leading to ex parte orders. The counsel filed an affidavit explaining that his associate inadvertently noted the wrong next date (13-10-1984 instead of 13-9-1984) and that he was under the bona fide impression that the written statement had been filed. The Supreme Court found that it was not a case of gross negligence or deliberate avoidance of professional responsibility. The Court held that a lawyer's sworn affidavit, explaining a bona fide mistake in noting a court date, can be sufficient to justify setting aside ex parte proceedings, especially when the lawyer's integrity is not questioned and the explanation is plausible. Corroboration, such as from a junior lawyer, is not always necessary. The Court refused leave to appeal, finding no justification for interference with the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can ex parte proceedings be set aside based solely on a lawyer's affidavit explaining a bona fide mistake in noting a court date?
- Is corroboration always required for a lawyer's affidavit explaining non-appearance due to a bona fide mistake?
- Does a lawyer's inadvertent error in noting a court date constitute gross negligence or wilful mala fide disregard of a client's interest?
- Anjuman Khadamul Massajid, Kot Rukan Din Khan, Kasur Through General Secretary vs Border Area Committee And 4 Other1990 CLC 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Jamia Tauheedia (Regd.), Sheikhupura through President and another vs Deputy Commissioner_District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and another1990 MLD 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a registered society and its president challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Sheikhupura, which dissolved the society's management body, ordered fresh elections, and appointed an Assistant Commissioner as administrator to manage a mosque. The petitioners contended that the Deputy Commissioner had no statutory authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to dissolve a registered society or appoint an administrator. The respondents and intervenors argued that the Deputy Commissioner possessed executive powers under various government circulars to regulate religious places and manage local affairs. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed in complete ignorance of the law and was void and without jurisdiction. The Court observed that the power of dissolution under the Act rests with the Provincial Government and not the Deputy Commissioner. It further ruled that the executive circulars relied upon only concerned building permissions and did not authorize the dissolution of registered societies. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was declared illegal.
Questions settled- Does a Deputy Commissioner or District Magistrate have the statutory authority under the Societies Registration Act 1860 to dissolve a registered society or appoint an administrator?
- Can executive circulars regulating the construction of religious places empower a local administrator to dissolve a registered society managing a mosque?
- Whether the power of dissolution of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 vests in the Deputy Commissioner or the Provincial Government?
- Anjuman Bahboodeniswan Gizri (Regd.) vs Government of Sindh1990 MLD 927 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Arhtian (Regd.) Khanpur through its President vs Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab Agricultural Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 20 others1990 PLD Lahore 32 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a representative body of commission agents, challenged the constitution of the Market Committee, Khanpur, alleging that the Zila Council failed to include their recommended nominees in the panel for appointment, in violation of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978. The petitioner further contended that certain appointed members lacked the requisite qualifications. The core legal question was whether the Zila Council was mandatorily required to recommend names provided by the petitioner and whether the constitutional petition was the appropriate forum for challenging the committee's composition. The Court held that under the 1979 Rules, the Zila Council’s duty to include specific recommended names is discretionary rather than mandatory, unlike previous regulations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was not maintainable because the Ordinance provides an alternative statutory remedy under Section 11, allowing the Government to remove improperly appointed members. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, declining to stay the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, affirming that where a special statute provides an adequate alternative remedy, constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked.
Questions settled- Is the Zila Council mandatorily required to include names recommended by trade associations in the panel for Market Committee appointments under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978?
- Does the existence of a statutory remedy for the removal of improperly appointed members under Section 11 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, bar a constitutional petition?
- Can election proceedings of a Market Committee be stayed on the ground that a member participated who was allegedly not qualified?
- Anis Fazal Kiyani vs Messrs Pakistan Steel1990 PLC 403 · Labour Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Amjad Saeed and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
- Amjad Ashraf Khan vs General Manager Peco1990 PLC 484 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- Amjad Ali Shah vs Abdullah alias Dullah1990 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of a trial court to grant a temporary injunction restraining the alienation of suit property. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to an injunction to prevent the potential alienation of the property during the pendency of the suit. Upon hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal. However, the Court issued a specific direction that if the suit property had not yet been alienated, the respondent must provide prior information to the trial court before any such alienation takes place. This holding balances the petitioner's interest in preserving the status quo with the respondent's right to deal with the property, provided that the trial court is kept informed. The principle laid down is that while an injunction may be refused, the court retains the authority to impose procedural safeguards to ensure transparency and prevent the frustration of the decree in pending litigation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court impose a condition of prior notification for property alienation while refusing leave to appeal against the denial of a temporary injunction?
- Is a party required to inform the trial court before alienating suit property if a temporary injunction has been refused?
- Amir Zaman vs Muhammad Yaq00b and others1990 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents and sentenced them to death. The High Court overturned these convictions, citing the interested nature of the eye-witnesses and the existence of prior civil and criminal litigation between the parties. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition and affirmed the acquittal of four respondents, finding the High Court's reasoning regarding them justified. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically against one respondent, Abdul, determining that the ocular evidence against him was supported by independent corroborative evidence, necessitating further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition regarding the other respondents while ordering the issuance of non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the respondent against whom leave to appeal was granted, rejecting a verbal request for bail at that stage.
Questions settled- Does the existence of prior litigation between parties and the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased justify an acquittal?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against one respondent while being dismissed against others in the same criminal case?
- Is a verbal request for bail entertainable at the stage of granting leave to appeal before the accused is arrested?
- Amir Sardar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 414 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, Amir Sardar, challenged an order passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge (West), Karachi, which granted him bail in two separate criminal cases but mandated the furnishing of cash surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for each case. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a trial court possesses the legal authority to compel an accused to deposit cash security as a condition for bail. The High Court held that the order demanding cash surety was illegal. Relying on established precedents, the Court clarified that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically Sections 499 and 513, contemplates the execution of personal bonds with sureties rather than the compulsory deposit of cash. While a court may accept cash if voluntarily offered by an accused under Section 513, it cannot insist upon it. Consequently, the High Court modified the trial court's order, permitting the applicant to be released upon furnishing bail bonds with sureties instead of the previously ordered cash security.
Questions settled- Is a trial court legally empowered to insist on cash security as a condition for granting bail?
- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 authorize a court to demand cash in lieu of a bail bond?
- Under what circumstances can a court accept cash security for bail?
- Amir Khan through his Legal Heirss vs Pakistan Mineral Development1990 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an appeal regarding the applicability of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was terminated from service due to blindness and sought compensation under Standing Order 10-B for compulsory group insurance. The core legal question was whether the statutory exemption excluding the Ordinance's application applied to the industrial project, and whether the claim was competent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the project, being managed by a company incorporated under the Companies Act without direct governmental operation or applicable statutory rules of service at the relevant time, did not qualify for exemption, thereby making Standing Order 10-B applicable. The Court clarified that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 applied only to the procedure and not the forum for claims under Standing Order 10-B, which are appropriately brought via section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Furthermore, the delay in filing was condoned due to diligent prosecution of remedies. The appeal was allowed, and compensation was awarded based on an agreed settlement between the parties.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to a project carried on by a company incorporated under the Companies Act?
- Does Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 necessitate filing a grievance through section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Whether the procedural framework of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 dictates the forum for claims arising under Standing Order 10-B?
- Amir Din and 5 others vs Bahadur Hussain1990 PLD Supreme Court 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the effect of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 on pending litigation regarding ancestral land and reversionary rights. The respondent had previously obtained a declaratory decree in India challenging an alienation of land by his father under custom, which was later sought to be enforced in Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the respondent's decree remained executable following the promulgation of Ordinance No. XIII of 1983, which introduced Section 2-A. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be restored due to a misunderstanding regarding the dismissal for non-prosecution. On merits, the Court ruled that Section 2-A of the Ordinance rendered any decree affirming the rights of a reversioner under custom void, inexecutable, and of no legal effect, provided possession had not already been delivered. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, dismissed the respondent's suit for possession, and established the principle that statutory amendments retrospectively nullify pending claims based on customary reversionary rights where possession has not yet transferred.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 render decrees based on customary reversionary rights void and inexecutable?
- Can an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution be restored if the counsel's absence was due to a genuine misunderstanding regarding court proceedings?
- Does the abatement provision in Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 apply to pending litigation where possession of the land has not yet been delivered?
- Amir Bux and others vs Ibrahim and others1990 MLD 1145 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-16Read full judgment →
- Amir Bux and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, sentencing them to death and prison terms. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony and corroborative evidence in a case marked by deep-seated prior enmity, related and partisan witnesses, and material contradictions between statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and depositions in court. The High Court held that while the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not discredit their testimony, the evidence of related and inimical witnesses must be scrutinized with extreme caution and requires corroboration from independent and unimpeachable sources. Finding the ocular and recovery evidence shaky, contradictory, and uncorroborated, the court laid down that unconvincing corroborative evidence and doubtful recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction in the face of deep party enmity, leading to the setting aside of the convictions and the acquittal of the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and inimical eyewitnesses requires independent corroboration before it can form the basis of a conviction?
- Can a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to corroborate or explain any part of the prosecution evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of an alleged weapon recovery when the weapon and empties are not sent to a ballistic expert and recovery witnesses are interested and from a different locality?
- How should omissions and minor discrepancies between an F.I.R. and testimony in court affect the credibility of an eyewitness?
- Amir Bakhsh and anothers vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others1990 MLD 245 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a suit challenging a gift mutation and seeking inheritance shares, which was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court decreed the suit, refusing to allow the defendants to argue issues decided against them on the ground that no cross-objections had been filed. The Lahore High Court examined whether a respondent in an appeal can support the trial court's decree on issues decided against them without filing cross-objections or a cross-appeal. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that a respondent is fully entitled to support a decree in their favour on grounds decided against them by the trial court without filing cross-objections, and that the appellate court must address points for determination. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision, set aside the appellate judgment, and remanded the case for rehearing and decision issue-wise.
Questions settled- Can a respondent in an appeal support a decree in their favour on grounds decided against them by the trial court without filing cross-objections?
- Does the failure of a first appellate court to decide and discuss all material issues amount to a violation of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether an appellate court judgment rendered without addressing all points for determination and issues framed constitutes a valid judgment in the eyes of law?
- Amir Ali and others vs Messrs Burma Oil Mills Ltd.1990 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addressed whether a tenant, having defaulted on monthly rent payments, could avoid eviction by asserting an implied contract or established practice of paying rent in lump sums upon demand. The appellants sought ejectment due to six months of rent arrears. The Rent Controller initially exercised discretion in favor of the tenants, citing a practice of delayed payment. The Additional District Judge reversed this, ordering eviction. The High Court restored the Rent Controller's order, finding that the landlords had acquiesced to the payment mode. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that statutory requirements for rent payment cannot be contracted out of, and a mere history of accepting delayed payments does not constitute a binding agreement to alter the mode of payment. The Court emphasized that the burden lies on the tenant to prove a specific agreement to change payment terms, which cannot be lightly inferred from the landlord's past tolerance or courtesy. Consequently, the Court ruled that the tenants' default was established, no valid extenuating circumstances existed, and the order of eviction was restored.
Questions settled- Can parties contract out of the statutory requirements for the payment of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a landlord's past acceptance of rent at irregular intervals establish an implied contract to alter the statutory mode of payment?
- Is a landlord's letter reminding a tenant of rent arrears equivalent to a bill for rent that modifies the contractual obligation to pay monthly?
- Can a court exercise discretion to condone rent default based solely on the landlord's past tolerance of delayed payments?
- Amir Alam vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 548(2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- Amir Ahmad vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1990 SCMR 1437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal arising from the termination of the petitioner's services as an Assistant Director, Industries and Mineral Development, during his probation period on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance and conduct. The core legal question is whether a civil servant undergoing probation is entitled to a show-cause notice prior to the termination of services for unsatisfactory performance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the point raised regarding the entitlement to a show-cause notice during probation requires formal examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to the petitioner to review the legality of the termination action in light of established precedents concerning probationary civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant on probation is entitled to a show-cause notice before termination of service for unsatisfactory performance?
- Does unauthorized absence and medical fitness during training justify termination during the probationary period?
- Amir Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan and another1990 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 15-5-1989, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning a seniority claim. The core legal question is whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is liable to be dismissed for failure to implead necessary parties whose seniority rights would be adversely affected. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal under rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, due to the non-joinder of necessary parties when the petitioner failed to show any cogent reason for such omission. The key principle laid down is that failure to implead directly affected necessary parties in a service seniority dispute warrants the dismissal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal can be dismissed for failing to implead officers likely to be adversely affected by a claim for seniority?
- Does failure to provide cogent reasons for the non-joinder of necessary parties justify the dismissal of a service appeal?
- Ames Irshad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- American President Lines Ltd. and anothers vs The Eastern Federal1990 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-07Read full judgment →
- Ameer vs Rab Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner Ameer against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which accepted the criminal appeal of the respondent Rab Nawaz and acquitted him of the charge of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence of death given by the trial court, based on delayed lodging of the First Information Report, discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence, and doubtful recovery of the weapon. The Supreme Court held that the delay in the F.I.R., the absence of the complainant at the scene, contradictions regarding the deceased's empty stomach versus the time of occurrence, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of the hatchet rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of the doubt to the respondent. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in reporting a crime, coupled with material contradictions in evidence and doubtful recoveries, warrants acquittal through the benefit of the doubt, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report casts doubt on the ocular account in a murder case?
- Does a contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the empty stomach of the deceased and the alleged time of the occurrence weaken the prosecution case?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal by the High Court when the conclusions are supported by sufficient doubtful circumstances?
- Ameen Khan vs Messrs Star Silk and Rayon Mills, Karachi1990 PLC 415 · Labour Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah Khan and others vs The Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves six appeals arising from a Lahore High Court decision that quashed an order of the Minister of State for Finance granting permission to Amanullah Khan and his associates to establish and register the Islamabad Stock Exchange. The High Court had struck down the sanction primarily on grounds of factual mala fides, nepotism, and improper administrative procedure under the Rules of Business, while also declining to examine other aspects due to the alleged bad faith. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ultimate declaration that the Minister's order dated 19-8-1989 was unlawful, but modified the reasoning. The Court held that the Minister's order was fatally defective for violating Section 5(3) of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969, by failing to grant a mandatory hearing to rejected applicants, failing to record statutory reasons regarding eligibility and public interest under Section 5(2), and failing to properly communicate the decision. However, the Court expunged the High Court's adverse findings of personal mala fides against the Minister, holding that factual mala fides cannot be adjudicated against a constitutional functionary without formally impleading them, and natural justice cannot override the express constitutional framework of Article 248. The applications were directed to be reconsidered afresh by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of giving an applicant an opportunity of being heard under Section 5(3) of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 before refusing registration is mandatory?
- Can a court record a finding of factual mala fides against a Minister protected under Article 248 of the Constitution without that Minister being formally impleaded as a party to the proceedings?
- Does the statutory delegation of power under Section 28 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 completely denude the delegating authority of its concurrent power to act?
- Is the existence of one registered Stock Exchange a lawful ground under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 to summarily refuse or decline to entertain an application for another Stock Exchange?
- Altaf Hussain vs D.W. & C.E. (Army) QMG's Branch, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi1990 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
- Alnoor Industries Ltd. through Chief Executive, Saidu Sharif, Swat vs The Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and 5 others1990 PLD Peshawar 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited vs Ejaz Ahmad Abbasi and another1990 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute where the respondent, a bank employee, was dismissed for misconduct. After various rounds of litigation, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal found that five out of nine charges were proved against the respondent based on his admissions. The Tribunal ordered his reinstatement but denied him back benefits, reasoning that he succeeded on a technical ground. The respondent challenged the denial of back benefits in the Lahore High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's finding of fact, reappraised the evidence, and remanded the case for a fresh decision on back benefits. The appellant bank appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, had exceeded its limits by reappraising evidence and disturbing a finding of fact recorded by the competent Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction disturb a finding of fact recorded by a Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- Whether the reappraisal of evidence falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction when a competent tribunal has already appraised the facts?
- Is an employee automatically entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement if some of the charges of misconduct are found to be proved against him?
- Allah Yar vs The State1990 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the court arises from the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the face of significant discrepancies between the First Information Report, ocular testimony, and the medical evidence, coupled with delayed reporting and lack of corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material improvements at the trial, major contradictions regarding the weapon attributed to the appellant versus the injuries found on the victims, and the absence of bloodstains on the recovered weapon. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, accepted the appeal, and set aside his conviction and sentence, thereby establishing the principle that irreconcilable discrepancies between ocular accounts and medical evidence, along with belated improvements, warrant an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of the doubt can be extended to an accused when there is a material discrepancy between the First Information Report and the medical evidence?
- Does an improvement in ocular testimony at trial regarding the weapon used by the accused create sufficient doubt to warrant an acquittal?
- Can a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of independent corroborative evidence when the primary testimony is doubtful?
- Allah Rakha vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →