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.
- Gul Muhammad And 5 Others vs Atta Muhammad And Another1989 MLD 4630 · Board of Revenue · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Gul Mir And Others vs Ghulam Rasool And Other1989 MLD 3446 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Gul Mast, Medical Technician, Bhu Kot Tarnab Charsadda, District1989 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
- Gul Marjan And Another vs Atta Muhammad Khan And 2 Other1989 CLC 2189 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Gul Hayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1701 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Gul Hashim vs Noor Qadir and others1989 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Revenue authorities and the High Court regarding a suit for the recovery of batai (share of produce) and ejectment filed by a landlord against a tenant. The petitioner contended that the lower authorities erred in calculating the batai at 50% of the produce, asserting that the legal limit was 40%, and further argued that he was entitled to deduct the costs of improvements made to the land from the payable amount. The Supreme Court examined the merits of these contentions and determined that, even when applying the 40% rate and accounting for the costs of improvements, the petitioner remained a defaulter in his obligations. Consequently, the Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower authorities did not warrant interference under its appellate jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that where a tenant remains in default of payment obligations despite adjustments for legal rates and improvements, the findings of lower revenue courts regarding ejectment and recovery will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding ejectment when the tenant remains a defaulter?
- Is a tenant entitled to deduct the costs of improvements from the batai payable to the landlord?
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment if they remain a defaulter even after calculating batai at the maximum legal rate?
- Gul Hamad And Others vs Additional Secretary, Government of N. W.F.P1989 CLC 1561 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Gul Azad Khan, Eada (E&M), Directorate of Agriculture and 13 others vs N.-1989 PLC (C.S.) 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Gul Asqal and others vs Additional Secretary, Home, N.W.F.P. and others1989 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 12-2-1989, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition concerning a land dispute. The underlying dispute originated from an application filed by private respondents for taking over 11 Chakawarms of land from the petitioners, which was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner Chitral and subsequently upheld in appeal by the Additional Commissioner and in revision by the Additional Secretary, Government of NWFP Home and Tribal Affairs Department. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the adjudicating forums, raised at a belated stage, could vitiate the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no force and dismissed it, observing that the petitioners had never objected to the jurisdiction of the tribunals constituted under the relevant regulation during the earlier proceedings, rendering their belated technical objection immaterial.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection to the jurisdiction of tribunals at a belated stage before the Supreme Court when no such objection was raised during the initial proceedings?
- Whether technical objections regarding the jurisdiction of judicial forums should be entertained when the matter has taken numerous years for adjudication?
- Gul Alam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2020 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Limited, Karachi (M/s.) vs Commissioner Of Sales TaxPTCL 1989 CL. 183 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Gujerat Travancore Agency vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala1989 PTD 1326 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Guhalam Muhammad Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 289 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Grp. Capt. Cecil (Sohail) Chowdhry vs Federation of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a constitutional petition invoked under Article 184 by a retired Group Captain belonging to the Christian community, challenging the election manifesto of a political party. The core legal question concerns whether the issuance of an election manifesto by a political party containing statements regarding restrictions on non-Muslims holding key posts provides a cause of action or raises a question of public importance for invoking the Court's original constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded since a manifesto is merely a public declaration of a political party and the party has yet to come into power, thereby disclosing no violation of any constitutional article or question of law of public importance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. The key principle laid down is that the mere issuance of a political party's election manifesto does not furnish a cause of action or right of grievance under constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of an actual violation of fundamental rights or laws.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of an election manifesto by a political party give rise to a cause of action for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- Whether apprehensions regarding policies stated in a political party's manifesto constitute a violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution?
- What constitutes a question of law of public importance for the purposes of invoking original constitutional jurisdiction?
- Govt. of Pakistan Etc vs Major (Retired) KH.Muhammad YousafK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 130 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Government of the Punjab vs Prof. Abdus Sattar Chohan and another1989 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Government of the Punjab against a judgment of the Provincial Service Tribunal. Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Conservator in the Forest Department, had been permitted to take up a foreign assignment in Nigeria, during which period junior officers were promoted to Conservators of Forest. Upon his return and subsequent promotion, his request for back-dating his promotion to claim seniority over junior officers was rejected by the department based on government instructions requiring civil servants on foreign assignments to return and earn a good report prior to promotion. The Service Tribunal set aside the departmental decision, holding that the instructions violated section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act and specific rules of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding promotion not being a matter of right and the alleged conflict between executive instructions and statutory provisions raised a question of law of considerable public importance affecting numerous civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether executive instructions requiring a civil servant on a foreign assignment to return and earn a good report before promotion violate the Punjab Civil Servants Act?
- Is promotion a matter of right for a civil servant who is passed over while serving abroad?
- Does the deferment of a civil servant's promotion during a foreign assignment violate established civil service rules?
- Government of the Punjab vs A. R. Toosi, S.E.1989 SCMR 1411(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's appeal and directed the removal of a warning from his character roll. The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by the counsel for the Government. The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or raise any question of public importance that would warrant the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction or require further determination. Consequently, the Court held that the petition lacked merit. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal in service matters unless a significant legal error or a question of public importance is clearly established by the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the removal of a warning from a character roll by a Service Tribunal constitute a question of public importance sufficient for Supreme Court intervention?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a judgment of a Service Tribunal?
- Government of Punjab, Lahore vs Dr. Khalid Hussain Gill and others1989 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals by the Government of Punjab against a Service Tribunal decision granting 'Special Research Allowance' to employees recruited for research institutions. The core legal question was whether these employees qualified as 'Field Officers' under the 1983 pay scheme, thereby entitling them to the allowance, and whether the government could recover payments made during the period of dispute. The Supreme Court observed that while the government argued for a narrow definition of 'Field Officer', a subsequent 1987 government memorandum explicitly extended the research allowance to both field officers and those employed exclusively in research organizations, effectively negating the government's previous restrictive interpretation. Consequently, the Court held that the appeals lacked merit and did not involve substantial questions of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeals, implicitly upholding the entitlement of the respondents to the allowance and rejecting the government's attempt to recover the payments made during the interim period.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to hear appeals regarding the interpretation of pay scheme allowances for government employees?
- Can the government recover research allowances paid to employees when a subsequent government policy revision adopts the same interpretation of eligibility that the employees originally relied upon?
- Government of Punjab vs Muhamad Nawaz Khan And Other1989 MLD 4185 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Government of Punjab and others vs M. Nasrullah Khan1989 SCMR 1179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of the Punjab and the Commissioner, Multan Division, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 12-10-1981, which had ordered the expungement of adverse remarks recorded in the service record of the respondent, M. Nasrullah Khan. The petitioners' counsel contended that the Tribunal acted contrary to law in granting relief to an employee with an unclean record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the Tribunal's order was in accordance with law or involved any question of public importance. Finding no such question of public importance or illegality in the impugned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a service tribunal's order expunging adverse remarks in the absence of a question of public importance?
- Does an adverse remark expunged by the Punjab Service Tribunal raise a substantial question of law warranting leave to appeal?
- Government of Punjab and others vs Abdul Sattar Nadeem Hashmi and others1989 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which arose from an appeal filed by a school employee, Abdul Sattar Nadeem Hashmi, challenging his service status and the nationalization of his institution. The petitioner sought a declaration regarding the status of the 'Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur' following its nationalization as a primary school, and requested to be recognized as a High School Headmaster with associated seniority and pay scale benefits. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of the school or grant declarations regarding the upgradation of the institution. However, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the petitioner's monthly emoluments effective from the date of nationalization. Both the Government of Punjab and the employee challenged the Tribunal's order, citing the precedent of Province of Punjab v. Bashir Ahmad Bukhari. The Supreme Court, finding that a substantial question of law of public importance was involved, granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the propriety of the Tribunal's order.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the status of an educational institution or grant declarations regarding its upgradation?
- Can a Service Tribunal fix the pay and emoluments of a civil servant when it has otherwise determined it lacks jurisdiction over the core subject matter of the appeal?
- Government of Pakistan vs Tufail Muhammad Khan And Other1989 MLD 4242 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Government of Pakistan vs Habib Oil Ltd. and others1989 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Government of Pakistan against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Sind, which followed the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the grant of interim relief and the protection of government revenue pending the main petitions, alongside the maintainability of a heavily time-barred review petition filed by the petitioner. The court declined to grant the interim relief in the terms prayed for by the petitioner. However, to safeguard government revenue, the court ordered by consent of the parties that the existing bank guarantees furnished by the respondents shall remain operative until replaced by personal bonds executed before the Nazir of the High Court, upon which the original bank guarantees shall be returned. The key principle laid down is that interim arrangements in revenue matters can be modulated by consent to protect government interests while pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Whether interim relief should be granted when a review petition against the foundational judgment is time-barred by 352 days?
- Can bank guarantees furnished by respondents be replaced by personal bonds to safeguard government revenue pending the decision on main petitions?
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Estalishment Division and others vs Jalaluddin Akbar Zaidi and others1989 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from four petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 23 July 1984. The core legal question concerns the correct determination of seniority for an accounts officer from a localized cadre absorbed into a newly constituted inter-departmental Accounts Group under reorganization memoranda issued in 1974 and 1976. The respondent, confirmed in grade 17 from 1969 within the Telegraph and Telephone Department, challenged his placement below officers recruited between 1969 and 1974 in the inter-departmental seniority list. The Federal Service Tribunal accepted his appeal, directing that his seniority be fixed from his confirmation date of March 1, 1969, with consequential promotion benefits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine contentions that the Tribunal misconstrued relevant seniority rules and deviated from its own prior inconsistent view regarding the seniority of localized cadre members versus all-Pakistan service members upon the formation of the inter-departmental cadre. The key principle noted for examination is the interpretation and application of seniority rules governing the merger and reorganization of government services into an inter-departmental cadre.
Questions settled- Whether an officer belonging to a localized cadre is entitled to claim seniority from the date of confirmation upon absorption into a newly constituted inter-departmental cadre?
- Did the Federal Service Tribunal misconstrue the relevant seniority rules regarding the fixation of seniority for amalgamated accounts services?
- How does the constitution of an inter-departmental cadre affect the inter se seniority of officers previously belonging to different departmental cadres?
- Government of N.W.F.P. through I.G.P. and others vs Mst. Tasleem1989 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had set aside the discharge of a lady police constable from service. The respondent, having served only four months, was discharged following a complaint and an unsatisfactory response to a show-cause notice. The petitioners, representing the Government of N.W.F.P., challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the competent authority possessed the legal power to discharge the respondent under Police Rule 12.21, notwithstanding that proceedings had been initiated under the Police Rules, 1975. The petitioners contended that Police Rule 12.21 is specifically applicable to police officers with less than three years of service, thereby permitting discharge without the necessity of full disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the question of whether the initiation of proceedings under the Police Rules, 1975, precludes the application of Police Rule 12.21 for an officer with less than three years of service, granted leave to appeal to examine the scope and interplay of these provisions.
Questions settled- Does the initiation of proceedings under the Police Rules, 1975, bar the competent authority from passing an order of discharge under Police Rule 12.21?
- Is Police Rule 12.21 applicable to police officers with less than three years of service regardless of other ongoing disciplinary processes?
- Government of N.W.F.P. Through Collector, Mardan And Another vs Gul1989 CLC 2080 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Namroz Khan1989 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 26-5-1988, which accepted the respondent's appeal, set aside his termination, and granted him back benefits. The respondent, initially appointed as a temporary cleaner in the FATA Forest Division, faced multiple absences from duty on medical and other grounds, ultimately leading to his termination from service by the Divisional Forest Officer after an unauthorized absence period. His departmental representations and appeals were rejected before he successfully approached the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the validity of terminating a temporary employee's service without a formal detailed inquiry and whether such termination constituted a punishment requiring strict adherence to legal formalities. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further on the existing record.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary employee can be terminated from service without assigning reasons or notice?
- Does the termination of a temporary employee based on unauthorized absence constitute a punishment requiring a detailed inquiry?
- Are the findings of a Service Tribunal setting aside a termination order subject to examination by the Supreme Court under leave to appeal?
- Government of N. W.F.P. And 3 Others vs Syed Allauddin And 10 Other1989 CLC 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Government of N. W.F.P. And 2 Others vs Shah Alam1989 CLC 1542 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the Government of N.-W.F.P. and others regarding a rescinded timber purchase agreement and forfeited security. The core legal questions involved the legality of service of summons upon the Government, the competence of an advocate to represent the Government without proper authorization under Order 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the validity of an ex parte decree passed without adhering to mandatory provisions, and the competence of an appeal filed by the Government Pleader. The Peshawar High Court held that mandatory provisions regarding the service of summons upon the Government through the Government Pleader or authorised agents were violated, that the trial court passed an illegal ex parte decree without writing a proper judgment containing issues and findings, and that the appellate court erred in holding the appeal incompetent. The revision petition was accepted, setting aside both the trial and appellate court judgments, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a suit against the Government can proceed without proper service of summons upon the Government through the Government Pleader or authorised forest officers?
- Can an advocate legally appear and act on behalf of the Government without being appointed by a general or special order in writing?
- Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal filed by the Government Pleader on the ground that it should have been filed by a private counsel?
- Whether a trial court can pass an ex parte decree after framing issues without rendering a judgment containing a concise statement of the case and findings on each issue?
- Gordhandas vs Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and another1989 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether the Service Tribunal correctly upheld the removal of the appellant from the service of WAPDA under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, notwithstanding pending disciplinary enquiries and previous charge-sheets. The appellant contended that the statutory power of removal could not be invoked as a cloak to bypass regular disciplinary proceedings or to inflict punishment carrying a stigma. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of constitutional guarantees and in view of the overriding and plenary nature of the statutory power conferred by Section 17(1-A), the Authority is legally competent to retire or remove an employee without assigning reasons, even if disciplinary enquiries are pending in the background, provided the order is free from mala fides and is not quorum non judice. The Court affirmed that such plenary powers allow the employer to examine the entire service record to determine if an employee's continuance is in the public interest, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Water and Power Development Authority invoke Section 17(1-A) to remove an employee while disciplinary enquiries are pending against him?
- Whether the plenary power of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act can be challenged on the ground that pending enquiries should have been taken to their logical conclusion?
- What are the grounds available for judicial review before the Service Tribunal against an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act?
- Gohar Aman Khan vs Malik Aman And 3 Other1989 CLC 2032 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Giga Patel vs Haji Siddique1989 MLD 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulamhaider Khan vs Mst. Khurshid Begum And Another1989 CLC 415 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yasin vs The State1989 MLD 2801 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yasin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yasin vs Muhammad Luqman1989 MLD 200 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yasin vs Additional District Judge and others1989 SCMR 1054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition, thereby upholding eviction orders issued by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. The respondent, a widow, had successfully sought the petitioner's eviction based on default in rent payments. The petitioner contested the eviction by denying the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming instead that he held the property through a family settlement in exchange for his share in other joint property, and further asserting adverse possession. The Rent Controller, however, determined that the landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the petitioner was in default. The Supreme Court reviewed the petitioner's contention that a pending civil suit regarding title should have precluded the Rent Controller's findings. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the lower courts' appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the eviction order while clarifying that the petitioner's pending civil suit regarding title remains unaffected and shall proceed on its own merits in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when a title suit is pending in a Civil Court?
- Does the existence of a pending civil suit regarding property title automatically preclude a Rent Controller from ordering eviction based on rent default?
- Is a finding of fact by a Rent Controller, upheld by an Appellate Court, subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction absent a jurisdictional error?
- Ghulam Siddique vs Jameela1989 MLD 3530 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabir and 2 others vs Muhammad Sher and 8 others1989 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision in a land inheritance dispute. The core legal question involves the devolution of property belonging to a deceased individual, Abbas, who died prior to the promulgation of the Shariat Application Law of 1948. The property was originally mutated under custom solely in the name of the deceased's son, Mangladah, to the exclusion of his daughter, Mst. Said Begum. Following Mangladah's death in 1982, the property was claimed by his heirs, including beneficiaries of a will made by him. The petitioners argued that Mst. Said Begum should have been treated as a rightful Muslim heir to her father under Section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, as amended in 1983. Finding that the arguments presented find prima facie support in established Supreme Court precedents, the Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the entire question of the devolution of the property of the deceased following his death, thereby setting the stage for a comprehensive review of the inheritance rights involved.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 apply to the devolution of property of a person who died before the promulgation of the Shariat Application Law of 1948?
- Can property inherited under custom by a son to the exclusion of a daughter be re-opened in light of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Muhammad Bashir And Another1989 MLD 700 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways and another1989 PLC 940 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs District Food Controller and others1989 SCMR 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an ex-Chaukidar in the Food Department, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against his dismissal from service. The disciplinary action arose from the theft of Bardana valued at Rs. 60,000 from the godown where he was posted in 1985. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the theft would not have occurred had the petitioner been present on the date of the incident. The petitioner contended that safety measures and electricity arrangements were unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any error of law or raise any question of public importance in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be dismissed from service for negligence leading to the theft of departmental property?
- Does the absence of proper electricity and safety arrangements absolve a watchman of liability for theft from a godown?
- On what grounds will the Supreme Court interfere with a factual finding upheld by the Service Tribunal?
- Ghulam Shabbir alias Shabbir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1989 MLD 2937 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1989 MLD 4646 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Javaid alias Khalid and another1989 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine, which was subsequently reduced by the Sessions Judge on appeal to three and a half years' rigorous imprisonment. Upon further challenge, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, noting that the immediate cause of the occurrence was undisclosed and the alleged motive was weak. The core legal question concerned the justification for enhancing a reduced sentence where mitigating circumstances such as an unproven immediate cause and weak motive exist. The Supreme Court held that the reasons provided by the High Court were weighty under the circumstances and refused to interfere with the sentence. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may consider undisclosed immediate causes of occurrence and weak motives as valid mitigating factors for sentence reduction, which do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court for sentence enhancement.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence should be granted when the High Court reduces the sentence based on a weak motive and undisclosed immediate cause?
- Can an undisclosed immediate cause of occurrence serve as a mitigating factor for reducing a sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan1989 PLC 153 · Labour Court · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Faiz Muhammad and another1989 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee/defendant against the dismissal of his Constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings of fact against him regarding the service of summons in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned whether an ex parte decree and subsequent execution could be set aside on allegations of fraud regarding summons service without establishing the factual basis for the plea. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not succeed without establishing his plea on facts concerning the service of summons, and since concurrent findings of fact were rendered against him and his attempt to discredit the Process Server failed, no relief could be granted. The key principle laid down is that a party alleging fraud in the service of summons must establish the plea on facts, and concurrent findings of fact on such issues cannot be dislodged on technicalities.
Questions settled- Whether a party can succeed in setting aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud regarding summons service without establishing the plea on facts?
- Does a concurrent finding of fact on the question of the service of summons warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can relief be granted on technicalities when attempts to discredit the Process Server have failed?
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry and 2 others vs Chairman, Central Board1989 PLC (C.S.) 682 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar And Others vs Mst. Sultan Bibi And Other1989 MLD 4873 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Safdar vs The State1989 MLD 749 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Safdar Alias Gami vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 420 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sadiq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2035 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Razzaq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul vs Wazir Khan and others1989 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of the petitioner's father. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents based on the premise of a daylight occurrence and the absence of misidentification. However, the High Court acquitted them, finding the prosecution evidence highly doubtful and conflicting. Upon review, the Supreme Court found significant contradictions between the F.I.R., the ocular account, and the medical evidence. Specifically, the F.I.R. alleged two shots were fired, while the medical report indicated five firearm injuries, suggesting more than two shots were fired. Additionally, the recovery of crime weapons was not proven, and the ocular testimony was deemed unreliable. The Supreme Court held that these material contradictions created reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the number of shots alleged in the F.I.R. and the number of injuries found in the medical report constitute a material contradiction warranting acquittal?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is contradicted by the medical evidence?
- Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case applicable when there are significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence?
- Ghulam Rasul vs The State1989 MLD 708 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul vs Shahid Mahmood alias Shadda and another1989 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the enhancement of the respondent's sentence from imprisonment for life to death, following a judgment by the Lahore High Court that maintained the respondent's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the death sentence. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in altering the sentence of death to life imprisonment on the ground that the prosecution's set-up motive was not very obvious and remained shrouded in mystery, despite reliable eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recovery. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the mitigating circumstance of an unproven or obscure motive was sound and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that where the real motive for a crime remains shrouded in mystery, the appellate court may consider this as a mitigating circumstance to alter the sentence of death to life imprisonment in a murder case.
Questions settled- Whether an obscure or unproven motive can be considered a mitigating circumstance for altering a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding motive when findings are based on the record?
- Ghulam Rasul vs Muhammad Bibi1989 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Mst. Muhammad Bibi, was the legally wedded wife of the deceased, Ghulam Haider, and thus entitled to a share in his estate. The petitioner contended that the deceased was a 'Sainlog' who had never married, challenging the inheritance mutation that granted the respondent a one-fourth share. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court had relied on both oral testimony from the Lambardar and other landowners, as well as documentary evidence, to conclude that the respondent had lived with the deceased as his wife for over 25 years. The High Court upheld this finding of fact. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts had concurrently decided this question of fact based on evidence, there was no ground for interference. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that findings of fact supported by evidence are generally not subject to reappraisal in leave to appeal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding marital status in a leave to appeal petition?
- Is oral testimony from local residents and landowners sufficient to establish the status of a wife in inheritance proceedings?
- Ghulam Rasul vs Ihsan and 4 OtherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 314 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1098 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement1989 MLD 389 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC 623 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Nazir and 2 others1989 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree for declaration in a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings regarding the validity of a gift allegedly made by the deceased last male holder of the property. The plaintiffs, claiming as heirs under Muslim Law of Inheritance, challenged the gift and associated mutation proceedings, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court observed that all lower courts had rendered concurrent findings against the petitioner regarding the existence and validity of the gift. Furthermore, the petitioner's argument that the entry in the 'Rozenamcha Waqiati' of the Patwari was not given due weight was rejected, as the authenticity of that entry had not been established and was disbelieved by the courts below. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent factual findings, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift?
- Does an entry in the 'Rozenamcha Waqiati' of a Patwari automatically establish the validity of a gift if its authenticity is disputed and rejected by lower courts?
- Ghulam Rasool vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab1989 SCMR 1163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a writ petition challenging consolidation of land holdings proceedings. The petitioner contested the validity of a statement recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which allegedly bore his thumb-mark, surrendering four Kanals and ten Marlas of land. The core legal and factual question was whether the petitioner had indeed made and thumb-marked the statement surrendering the land. The High Court had assessed that the statement was genuinely made by the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, finding no reason to differ with the factual assessment of the High Court, held that no justification was made out for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding the voluntary surrender of land in consolidation proceedings will not be lightly disturbed.
Questions settled- Whether a concurrent finding of fact regarding the voluntary surrender of land in consolidation proceedings can be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of justification?
- Whether a statement recorded and thumb-marked before an Assistant Consolidation Officer is binding on the party making it?
- Ghulam Rasool vs Jalal1989 MLD 72 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Commissioner and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 865 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Assistant Commissioner, Saddar1989 MLD 132 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool Hyderi vs S.D.M., Tribunal Khairpur1989 P Cr. L J 458 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool And 5 Others vs Zaheer Ahmad1989 CLC 482 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim Khan vs Punjab Service Tribunal and 3 others1989 SCMR 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a police official, from service. The petitioner, a Head Constable, was dismissed following allegations of issuing bogus driving licenses while posted as a Learning Licence Clerk in the Traffic Branch. After a departmental inquiry and the issuance of show-cause notices, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police reverted and subsequently dismissed the petitioner. The petitioner's departmental appeals and his appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal were unsuccessful. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower authorities and the Tribunal. The Court held that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was based on a correct appreciation of the evidence presented during the inquiry. Finding no error in the lower forums' conclusions and determining that no question of law of public importance was involved, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby affirming the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Is the dismissal of a police official based on an inquiry into the issuance of bogus licenses sustainable if the evidence was correctly appreciated by the disciplinary authority?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal order require the presence of a question of law of public importance?
- Ghulam Qasim and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs Abdul Majid and 11 others1989 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court in a suit for declaration concerning an inheritance dispute. The core legal question involved the nature of the property rights held by a widow, Mst. Hussain Bibi, following the death of her husband, Fazal Hussain, and whether the respondents' predecessor, Charagh Din, had surrendered his reversionary rights in her favour. The petitioner, the son of the widow from a previous marriage, claimed title through a gift from the widow, asserting she held the property as an absolute owner. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently found that the widow was merely a limited owner and that Charagh Din had never surrendered his reversionary rights to her. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, determining they were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a limited owner cannot alienate property beyond their interest, and that claims of surrender of reversionary rights must be substantiated by clear evidence.
Questions settled- Can a limited owner of property alienate that property to a third party as an absolute owner?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding inheritance rights subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a claim of surrender of reversionary rights by a legal heir require proof of acceptance by the limited owner?
- Ghulam Qadir Bux vs The State1989 MLD 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4190 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir And Another vs The State1989 MLD 709 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Asghar and others1989 SCMR 1995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition concerning the award of past maintenance to minor children. Mst. Razia Begum filed a suit for maintenance for herself and her three minor children, which was initially dismissed by the Family Court, but partly decreed on appeal by the Additional District Judge who granted maintenance from the date of the institution of the suit. Upon a constitutional petition filed by the respondents, the High Court awarded past maintenance from September 1982. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether past maintenance could be granted to minor children under Islamic (Hanafi) law when not previously fixed by court decree or by the father. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the impermissibility of granting past maintenance under Hanafi law and the alleged excess of jurisdiction under Article 199 required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the operation of the order regarding past maintenance upon furnishing security.
Questions settled- Can past maintenance be granted to minor children under Hanafi law if it has not been previously fixed by a court decree or by the father?
- Did the High Court exceed its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan in awarding past maintenance?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Amin1989 MLD 4798 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs District Magistrate, Okara1989 MLD 4147 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs Commissioner, Lahore Division and others1989 SCMR 1300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a temporary junior clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner Sheikhupura, was reverted as an unemployed clerk following an inquiry into irregularities regarding arm licences. Although appellate authorities previously directed that a proper inquiry be held, the record examined by the Service Tribunal revealed that a regular inquiry had indeed been conducted by the A.D.C. (G), resulting in a detailed report holding the petitioner responsible for forgery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was removed from service without an inquiry and in defiance of appellate directions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention was factually baseless since a proper inquiry had in fact been conducted and completed. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the removal was valid upon the findings of the inquiry report.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can challenge a departmental reversion when a regular inquiry has duly established charges of forgery against him?
- Does the failure of appellate authorities to be apprised of a completed inquiry invalidate the disciplinary action taken on the basis of that inquiry?
- Ghulam Nabi Through Zainab Bibi vs Hakim Allah Dad1989 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi Alvi vs Town Committee, Jamke Cheema and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 15 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education DEPARTMENTand another1989 SCMR 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the extent to which staff of Municipal High Schools, whose control and management were transferred to the Government of Punjab under section 224(b) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975, could claim merger with the regular general cadre of government servants in the Education Department and compete for promotion. The Supreme Court held that while the notification and transfer conditions protected the transferred employees' previous service for pension, seniority, and other benefits, they did not guarantee the merger of separate cadres or entitle the appellants to be integrated into the general cadre or compete for seniority and promotion against existing civil servants therein unless expressly provided by law. The Court laid down that transferred personnel from local councils form a distinct entity and cannot unilaterally claim integration into a separate government service cadre or demand joint seniority and promotion rights without explicit statutory provision or relaxation of service rules.
Questions settled- Whether employees of municipal high schools transferred to the provincial government under the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 have a right to claim automatic merger with the regular general cadre of the Education Department?
- Can transferred municipal school staff claim joint seniority and the right to compete for promotion with civil servants of the general cadre without explicit statutory provision?
- Does a transfer notification under section 224(b) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 confer the right of cadre integration upon transferred educational staff?
- Ghulam Mustafa Bhatti vs Muhammad Ajmal Cheema1989 MLD 529 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa And Others vs A.C./Collector And Other1989 MLD 3520 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2827 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of the deceased. The incident allegedly occurred at a hotel where the deceased was attacked with a hatchet. The core legal questions involve the credibility of interested and related eyewitnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration, the reliability of weapon recovery, and the flaws in the police investigation. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-production of independent available witnesses, delayed recording of statements, suspicious weapon recovery, and an untrustworthy investigation. The key principle laid down is that uncorroborated evidence of interested or related witnesses cannot form the basis of a murder conviction when independent natural witnesses were readily available but withheld.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of related or interested eyewitnesses when independent witnesses were present and available?
- Does a delay in recording the statements of key eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony untrustworthy?
- What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when police remand application precedes the actual pointation and recovery memo?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to promptly visit the crime scene and examine independent witnesses create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The Director of Education (Schools), Peshawar1989 PLC (C.S.) 33 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mujadded and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 712(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2486 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Syed Imam Ali Shah And Other1989 MLD 4598 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 85 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Ismail and others1989 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of partisan eye-witnesses, the weight of an uncorroborated dying declaration, and the significance of a weapon recovery. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to acquit was based on a sound evaluation of the evidence, noting that the eye-witnesses were partisan and the dying declaration lacked medical attestation and appeared to be a verbatim copy of the F.I.R. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence like crime empties. The Court affirmed that when a High Court correctly applies principles of evidence appreciation and finds the prosecution case unsafe, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the acquittal. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration that lacks medical attestation and mirrors the F.I.R. verbatim?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal if the High Court has correctly applied the principles of evidence appreciation?
- Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction when no crime empties were recovered from the crime scene?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Din And Other1989 MLD 488 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →