Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs Kazi ALI MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by a landlord against the order of the High Court setting aside an ejectment order passed against the respondent-tenant. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller or the High Court possesses the discretion under section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to condone a technical default in the payment of rent. The Supreme Court held that the use of the word 'may' in the provision confers a judicial discretion to refuse ejectment upon proof of default, provided such discretion is exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles and not arbitrarily. The Court found that since advance rent was still lying in deposit with the landlord and a subsequent payment was accepted by him, the default was purely technical, and the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the tenant. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller has discretion in the matter of ordering ejectment once a default in the payment of rent is proved under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a technical default in rent payment be condoned by the court in light of advance rent lying in deposit with the landlord?
- How must the discretion conferred by section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, be exercised by the courts?
- KARAM KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- KARAM KARMOON And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 953 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- KARAM HUSSAIN And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 SCMR 1780 · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN and another vs IMAM DIN1986 MLD 716 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN And 2 Others vs Syeda SHAUKAT SULTANA1986 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- KARAM DAD and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2777 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
- KARAM BEGUN! AND 3 OTHERS vs ALLAH DIT1A AND 3 OTHERSPLD 1986 SC (A J & K1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- KARAM ALI SHAH vs MAZHAR HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the High Court set aside an order of acquittal passed by an Illaqa Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and remanded the case for trial. The core legal question for consideration is whether resort can be made to section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for setting aside an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A when a specific remedy against acquittal is provided under section 417 of the Code. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court noted the contention that the inherent powers under section 561-A cannot be invoked where an express remedy is available under the Code, and directed the appeal to be readied for an early hearing while continuing the interim order.
Questions settled- Whether resort is possible to section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for setting aside an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code?
- Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be availed of when another express remedy is provided by the Code?
- KARAM ALI And ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another1986 P C r. L J 1983 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- KARAM ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 92 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
- Karachi] MIR HASSAN and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1799 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- Karachi] Before Muhammad ZahooruZ Hach J Messrs MOTHERCARE Ltd. vs THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS (I), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and another1986 MLD 1680 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION vs Mat. SHAMSUL And 2 Others1986 PLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION vs MA HBOOB ALI1986 MLD 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- Kanwar SARFARAZ UMAR KHAN vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL And Other1986 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from the position of Assistant Manager, Waqf Properties. The petitioner was removed from service under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. Following the rejection of his departmental representation, the petitioner erroneously filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court instead of appealing to the Service Tribunal within the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal both as time-barred and on merits, citing lack of educational qualifications, over-age status, and political considerations in his appointment. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. While the Court did not address the limitation issue, it found no merit in the petition. Crucially, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the petitioner was over-age at the time of appointment and that no order relaxing the age limit had ever been passed. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that an appointment made without requisite qualifications or age relaxation is unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a writ petition in a High Court instead of an appeal before the Service Tribunal toll the limitation period for the service appeal?
- Can an appointment be sustained if the appointee was over-age at the time of appointment and no relaxation order was issued?
- Is a service appeal maintainable where the petitioner fails to meet the educational and age requirements for the post?
- KANWAR IJAZ ALI vs 1RSHAD ALI AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 67(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 challenges the judgment of the Election Tribunal dismissing an election petition filed against the victory of the returned candidate in a Punjab Provincial Assembly election. The core legal questions involved whether illegal and corrupt practices were committed by the successful candidate, whether the Presiding Officer was legally obligated to adjourn the poll under section 27 due to an alleged disturbance, and whether the Returning Officer and Election Tribunal erred in refusing a recount of ballot papers. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove corrupt practices or that a serious incident occurred necessitating the adjournment of the poll, and further held that a recount of ballot papers cannot be claimed as a matter of right but requires valid grounds and a reasonable request under section 39. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, affirming the principle that election challenges and requests for recounts must be substantiated by concrete evidence rather than assumptions and suppositions.
Questions settled- Is a Presiding Officer under a legal obligation to adjourn the poll when a minor disturbance occurs at a polling station?
- Can a recounting of ballot papers be claimed as a matter of right by a contesting candidate?
- What conditions must be satisfied for a Returning Officer to order a recount of ballot-papers under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976?
- Does an election petitioner bear the burden of proving allegations of illegal and corrupt practices against the successful candidate?
- KANIZ FATIMA vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1986 MLD 769 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- KANIZ FATIMA And Another vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns seven petitions for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of Constitutional petitions by the Sind High Court on the grounds of laches regarding urban settlement disputes. The petitioners, having purchased evacuee properties in Jacobabad between 1960-1962, faced resumption orders by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Although a Settlement Commissioner later ordered the restoration of certain properties conditional upon payment of the reserve price, the petitioners failed to comply or faced subsequent adverse orders after a remand by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying critical legal questions regarding whether the High Court's previous remand order negated the defense of laches for the period preceding it, whether the benefit of a restoration order could be revoked without a challenge by an opposing party, and whether the requirement to pay a reserve price instead of the auction price was legally sound. The Court also addressed procedural issues regarding notice requirements for payment and the necessity of impleading third parties who had acquired the disputed properties.
Questions settled- Does a High Court remand order in a writ petition negate the defense of laches for the period preceding that order?
- Can a benefit granted by a Settlement Commissioner's order be revoked by a High Court or an authorized officer without the order being challenged by an opposing party?
- Is a petitioner required to pay the reserve price or the auction price for the restoration of evacuee property?
- Must third parties who have acquired disputed properties be impleaded in proceedings concerning the restoration of those properties?
- KANDLA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
- KAMRAN STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS LIMITED SHEIKHUPURA vs MANSAB ALI1986 PLC 337 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- KAMEEN WAZIR vs The STATE1986 SCMR 2002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 2-4-1986, whereby the petitioner's request for pre-trial bail under sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was refused, while bail was granted to his co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail, particularly regarding the principle of consistency in bail matters. The Supreme Court held that the plea that the petitioner's case could not be distinguished from that of the released co-accused deserved consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the petition, and directed the case to be transferred to the Peshawar Registry for hearing during the upcoming court session.
Questions settled- Whether pre-trial bail should be granted to an accused whose case is indistinguishable from co-accused who have already been granted bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when considering bail applications for co-accused facing trial under sections 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- KAMBIR vs ABBAS And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-01Read full judgment →
- KAMALUDDIN And 30 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB. FINANCE DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 1042 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KAMALUDDIN And 30 Other vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 807 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-05-06Read full judgment →
- KAMAL BADSHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-17Read full judgment →
- KAMAL AHMED SIDDIQUI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and others1986 MLD 1847 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- KAM1R vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 2 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- KALSOOM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1444 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- KALOO vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
- KALOO KHAN and another vs ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others1986 MLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- KALO KHAN AND OTHERS vs GUL BEG AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 139 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-03-24Read full judgment →
- KALARANCE Alias MUHAMMAD NADEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1651(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- KAJLO And 3 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 50 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- KAISER KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH and another1986 MLD 935 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- KAISAR SINGH Alias SARDAR KHAN vs ABDUL MAJID And Other1986 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sikh by birth who embraced Islam and remained in Pakistan after Partition, sought a declaration from the Deputy Custodian that his ancestral land was non-evacuee property, claiming ownership through adverse possession. The Deputy Custodian rejected the plea, a decision upheld by the Custodian and the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the petitioner established adverse possession and whether he should be permitted to retain his ancestral share. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove adverse possession. Regarding his ancestral share, the Court observed that although he seemingly lost it due to pressing an incorrect plea for the entire property, it was open to him to seek legal remedies to reopen the matter if legally possible. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Did the petitioner successfully prove ownership of the land through adverse possession?
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in its writ jurisdiction regarding the Custodian's order?
- Can a party who unsuccessfully claims an entire property on a wrong plea subsequently seek to recover their admitted ancestral share?
- KAFEEL AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- KADIR BUX vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2184 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed on behalf of an accused facing trial under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for bank dacoity. The core legal question is whether an accused who has been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year can claim bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether such bail can be denied under the fourth proviso on the ground that the accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal despite having no previous convictions. The court held that while the third proviso makes bail mandatory upon the lapse of the statutory period, the fourth proviso empowers courts to deny bail to unconvicted persons if their conduct during the commission of the crime exhibits extraordinary courage, cruelty, or desperation, rendering them dangerous criminals. The key principle laid down is that the expression "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" in the fourth proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is not restricted to previous convicts and can be applied based on the manner and methodology of the crime.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused under the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused who has no previous convictions but whose conduct during the crime shows them to be a desperate and dangerous criminal?
- Does the word 'criminal' in the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily require a previous conviction or adjudication of guilt?
- Is the grant of bail mandatory under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has exceeded one year without delay attributable to the accused?
- K.S. JALIL AHMAD KHAN vs ISTIAQUE ALI and another1986 MLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- K.M.C. SANITARY AND GENERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION vs Rashid Ahmed For Appellant.''1986 PLC 32 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
- K) 63 Sardar MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMUPLD 1986 SC (A .1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- JURIO And 23 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2565 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- JUNAID AHMAD SOOMRO vs Haji MEHBOOB ALI BHAYO AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal's decision declaring the appellant's election void due to his alleged disqualification as a government contractor. The core legal question was whether the appellant held a subsisting interest in government contracts on the nomination date, thereby violating the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977. While the Tribunal held the appellant disqualified, the Supreme Court, by a majority, allowed the appeal. The Court held that disqualification provisions, being penal in nature, must be strictly construed. It established that where a candidate has unequivocally repudiated or abandoned a contract, and the government has not accepted performance or kept the contract alive through valid mutual agreement, the candidate ceases to have a subsisting interest for disqualification purposes. Unilateral extensions of time by the government after a clear abandonment are legally ineffective to maintain a subsisting interest. Consequently, the Court ruled the appellant was not disqualified, set aside the Tribunal's order, and dismissed the election petition, emphasizing that the possibility of exercising undue influence must be real, not merely theoretical.
Questions settled- Does a candidate's unilateral abandonment of a government contract terminate their subsisting interest for the purposes of election disqualification?
- Can a government department unilaterally extend a contract after the contractor has clearly repudiated it to maintain a subsisting interest for disqualification purposes?
- Should penal provisions regarding election disqualification be construed strictly?
- Does the mere existence of an unfinalized account regarding a completed government contract constitute a subsisting interest disqualifying a candidate?
- JUMO vs SHAFI MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Rev. 128 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-11-23Read full judgment →
- JUMMA GUL vs SURAT KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's acquittal of the respondents, who were initially convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony of witnesses deemed interested and partisan, and whether the alleged abscondence of the accused provided sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's reasoning. The Court held that while the testimony of interested witnesses is not inadmissible, it requires corroboration as a rule of prudence, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court clarified that mere allegations of abscondence, without formal proceedings or proclamations under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, do not constitute sufficient evidence to corroborate ocular testimony. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Is there an inflexible rule that the testimony of interested witnesses must be rejected without corroboration?
- Does the mere allegation of abscondence, without formal proclamation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitute sufficient corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony from partisan witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration?
- JUMAT ALI and 2 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 41986 MLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- JUMA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2055 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2572 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking clarification regarding whether multiple sentences of imprisonment for life imposed on the petitioners for a double murder are to run concurrently or consecutively. The petitioners were originally sentenced to death on two counts by the trial court, which was reduced to imprisonment for life on each count by the High Court, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court without specifying the concurrency of the sentences. The core legal question is whether multiple sentences of imprisonment for life resulting from a single trial must run concurrently when not expressly directed otherwise, and how section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limits the total period of imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the sentences of imprisonment for life on each count shall run concurrently and not consecutively, noting that under section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the total period of imprisonment at one trial cannot exceed 25 years. The principle laid down is that multiple sentences of life imprisonment arising from the same trial run concurrently to respect the statutory aggregate limits of imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether multiple sentences of imprisonment for life imposed at one trial are to run concurrently or consecutively when the judgment is silent on the matter?
- Does the total period of imprisonment at one trial exceed twenty-five years under section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court review its own judgment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after it has been upheld by the Supreme Court?
- JOHNSON AND PHILLIPS (Pakistan) Ltd. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1986 PLC 5 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- JILANI BAIG vs Mirza KHAIRATI BAIG1986 MLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- JETHARAM vs WERAM And Other1986 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a double murder case where the respondent was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. The complainant sought enhancement of the sentence to death, which was rejected by the High Court on the grounds that the incident occurred without premeditation, at the spur of the moment, and that the respondent had reacted to resistance and intervention by the victims. The Supreme Court examined whether these factors constituted mitigating circumstances. The Court held that where an accused armed with a deadly weapon commits house-trespass at night, he cannot plead mitigation if he kills the inmates who resist him or attempt to arrest him. Finding no valid mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to death on both counts.
Questions settled- Can an armed intruder who commits house-trespass at night plead mitigation of sentence on the ground that he killed the inmates in the heat of the moment when they resisted or tried to capture him?
- Does the failure to put a motive to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the award of a lesser penalty when guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence?
- Can a court rely on an unproven possibility of the accused sustaining injuries during the incident as a mitigating factor for sentencing if the same was excluded from the assessment of guilt?
- JEHANZEB vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2220 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1647 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR KHAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction for murder while reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution's case was fatally undermined by alleged procedural lapses, including the failure to produce the Tonga in court, the omission of chemical analysis for blood on the Tonga, the absence of an identification parade, and alleged discrepancies in the timing of witness statements. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular testimony of independent witnesses, corroborated by circumstantial evidence—specifically the appellant's arrest from his house surrounded by villagers and the recovery of a weapon smelling of freshly fired gunpowder—was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court established that procedural omissions, such as the failure to scrape blood from evidence or produce physical objects, do not automatically invalidate a prosecution case when the remaining evidence is unimpeachable and consistent. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that identification parades are unnecessary when the identity of the accused is established through reliable ocular testimony and immediate circumstantial corroboration.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce a physical object used in the commission of a crime in court automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is an identification parade necessary when the identity of the accused is established through reliable ocular testimony?
- Can adverse inferences be drawn from the prosecution's failure to collect or chemically analyze all available physical evidence if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt?
- JEHAN KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And 41986 PLC (C. S.) 963 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- JAWAID HAIDER KAZMI vs ATTAULLAH KHAN and 3 others1986 MLD 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
- JAWAID ANJUM vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1799 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- JAVID vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
- JAVID IQBAL vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2665 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-02Read full judgment →
- JAVID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 838 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- JAVID AHMAD BHATTI vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION1986 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Federal Investigation Agency (F.I.A.), was removed from service following allegations of misconduct. While still under training, the petitioner visited the office of the District Education Officer, misrepresenting himself as an 'Inspector' of the F.I.A. and misbehaving with officials. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, utilizing the shorter procedure which dispenses with a formal inquiry. The 'authorised officer' found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and recommended removal, a decision upheld by the Director-General, F.I.A. The petitioner appealed to the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of guilt and the appropriateness of the punishment. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the matter and found that the objections raised by the petitioner had been adequately addressed by the Service Tribunal. The Court held that no question of law of public importance arose, thereby dismissing the petition and affirming the removal from service.
Questions settled- Can disciplinary action be taken against a government servant using the shorter procedure under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 without a formal inquiry?
- Is the removal from service of a government servant for misconduct, upheld by the Service Tribunal, subject to appeal before the Supreme Court if no question of law of public importance is involved?
- JAVED SHEIKH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 687 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL And Another vs COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1986 PLC 440 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS vs FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND 31986 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge the registration and investigation of a criminal case by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against the petitioners, employees of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, concerning alleged fraud, forgery, and gas theft. The core legal question was whether the FIA possesses jurisdiction under the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1975 to inquire into and investigate scheduled offences relating to a public limited company. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since over 90 percent of the company's shares and majority control of its Board of Directors belong to the Federal Government or government-set-up corporations, the affairs and revenues of the company constitute matters 'concerning the Federal Government'. Furthermore, the court held that employees of such an entity fall within the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(e) of the Act, thereby confirming FIA's lawful jurisdiction to investigate.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to investigate scheduled offences committed in relation to a public limited company in which the Federal Government holds majority ownership and control?
- Whether the phrase 'matters concerning the Federal Government' in the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1975 includes the financial affairs and revenues of government-controlled corporations?
- Are employees of a public limited company controlled by the Federal Government considered 'public servants' under Section 2(e) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1975?
- JAVED and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2699 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
- JAVED ALI SANGJI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- JAVED AKHTAR vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1986 PLC 1139 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- JAVAID IQBAL vs MUSTEHKAM CEMENT Ltd.1986 PLC 281 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- JAVAID IQBAL And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 738 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
- JAVAID And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 997 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-15Read full judgment →
- JAVAID AHMED BHATTI vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, F.I.A.1986 PLC (C.S.) 350 · Federal Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- JANOO Alias JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- JANIB And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt through ocular evidence, motive, and recovery of incriminating weapons, particularly when the witnesses were interested and the investigation was flawed. The High Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellants, rejecting the trial court's reliance on the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that when eye-witnesses are interested and inimical, their testimony requires independent corroboration, which cannot be provided by the witnesses' own statements regarding motive or by medical evidence that fails to match the alleged manner of assault. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that if a witness is found to have falsely implicated one accused, their credibility regarding others is irretrievably shaken, and the evidence of an investigating officer cannot salvage recoveries made in violation of statutory safeguards regarding independent witnesses.
Questions settled- Can the evidence of an investigating officer be relied upon to prove recoveries when the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
- Does the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' require the rejection of a witness's testimony regarding all accused if they are found to have falsely implicated one co-accused?
- Can a complainant's own testimony regarding motive serve as independent corroboration for their ocular evidence in a criminal trial?
- Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate ocular evidence where the nature of injuries contradicts the alleged manner of the assault?
- JANGSHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2892 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER And 8 OTHER1986 CLC 486 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD JAVED vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 653 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD CHOWKIDAR vs TREET CORPORATION LIMITED1986 PLC 596 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND armss vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI1986 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of six civil references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging various awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer regarding lands acquired in Dehs Pipri, Bakran, Joreji, Koteriro, and Sanhiro for the establishment of the Pakistan Steel Mill and its township. The core legal question concerns the determination of the correct market value of the compulsorily acquired lands, taking into account their potentiality, location, post-notification evidence, and statutory amendments. The court held that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and modified the awards by determining the compensation per square yard based on contemporaneous government transactions, location advantages, and the appreciation resulting from the mega-project. The key principles laid down include that post-notification sales are admissible in evidence, a liberal approach must be adopted in favor of compulsorily displaced landowners, and the potential use of contiguous lands influenced by a major industrial project is a valid consideration in assessing market value.
Questions settled- Whether the court can consider post-notification sales and transactions for determining the market value of compulsorily acquired land?
- What is the extent of the burden of proof placed on a claimant challenging a land acquisition award in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- How does the potential use of contiguous land influenced by the establishment of a major industrial project affect the assessment of market value for subsequently acquired lands?
- Can the court remand a case back to the Collector or Land Acquisition Officer for a fresh decision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- JAN MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 377 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL AZIZ1986 PLD Rev. 150 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-11-23Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs JAN MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Rev. 35 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-11-30Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. WALAYAT-UN-NISA1986 PLD Rev. 70 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED IQBAL Alias Billo vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2309 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Iqbal Alias Billo Lahore. vs The StatePTCL 1986 CL. 188 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMED vs NIZAMUDDIN and another1986 MLD 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 4 others1986 MLD 957 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- JAMES MASIH vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN1986 PLC 309 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
- JAMEEL AHMAD SALEEMI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- JAMALUD DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LABOUR1986 PLC (C.S.) 466 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- JAMAL vs Rai NAEEMULLAH KHAN1986 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- JAMAL BIBI vs HABIB1986 MLD 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- Jamadar M. AMIR KHAN vs SARDAR ALI and others1986 MLD 854 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- JALIL AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and another1986 MLD 549 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- JALALDIN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1986 MLD 451 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- JALAL KHAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD1986 PLD Rev. 142 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-12-27Read full judgment →