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.
- ABID HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, NESCOM, ISLAMABAD2009 SCMR 1025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the removal of the petitioner, a former Technical Helper at the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), following allegations of attempted rape. The petitioner challenged his removal, which was upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal, arguing that the competent authority lacked jurisdiction to enhance the punishment recommended by the Inquiry Officer and that he was denied a fair hearing. The Supreme Court examined whether the competent authority could deviate from an inquiry officer's recommended penalty and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard. The Court held that the competent authority possesses the jurisdiction to disagree with an inquiry officer's recommendations, particularly regarding the quantum of punishment. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had been afforded due process, as he was issued a show-cause notice after the inquiry report was submitted, which explicitly warned of the possibility of dismissal. The Court affirmed that charges involving moral turpitude in sensitive institutions warrant serious disciplinary action. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does a competent authority have the jurisdiction to disagree with the quantum of punishment recommended by an inquiry officer?
- Is a show-cause notice required before a competent authority can enhance a penalty recommended by an inquiry officer?
- Does an allegation of moral turpitude justify a more severe disciplinary response in a sensitive institution?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus IRFAN TARIQ2009 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which directed the Establishment Division to re-determine the Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P.) quota for the 2003 Competitive Examination. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally deduct a P.S.P. seat from the 2003 provincial quota to accommodate a candidate from a previous examination year (2001) pursuant to a court order, thereby depriving a successful 2003 candidate of their rightful allocation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the deduction was illegal and lacked any basis in law, rules, or departmental instructions. The Court affirmed that authorities cannot reduce a reserved provincial quota to accommodate candidates from prior years without explicit legal or rule-based authorization. Relying on the principle established in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tayyab, the Court emphasized that such actions violate the principles of fairness and equity, and that quotas reserved for specific areas under the Constitution cannot be arbitrarily reduced to the detriment of candidates in the current examination year.
Questions settled- Can the government reduce a provincial quota for a current year's competitive examination to accommodate a candidate from a previous year's examination?
- Does the government have the authority to deduct a seat from a reserved quota without explicit legal or rule-based justification?
- Is the reduction of a reserved provincial quota in a competitive examination consistent with the constitutional safeguards against discrimination in the Service of Pakistan?
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore Versus SAMEENA PARVEEN2009 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Punjab against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The respondents were appointed as Primary Teaching Certificate (PTC) Teachers in 1995/1996 and served for nearly a decade before their services were repeatedly terminated on allegations that their appointments were bogus and fake. The petitioner state argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 over terms and conditions of civil servants. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents' appointments had already been declared genuine in a preceding judgment involving a similarly situated teacher. Citing established precedent, the Court held that dictates of justice, good governance, and Article 25 of the Constitution require that benefits of a judicial decision settling a point of law for one civil servant must be extended to all other similarly placed civil servants without compelling them to litigate separately. Finding no merit or ground for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of a judicial decision on a point of law affecting a civil servant must be extended to all other similarly situated civil servants without requiring separate litigation?
- Whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies when petitioners seek equal treatment under Article 25 based on an already settled point of law?
- Does Article 25 of the Constitution obligate the state to treat civil servants whose cases are at par with previously successful litigants in the same manner?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE FOR ALLOTMENT OF OFFICIAL RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION, P.I.M.S. ISLAMABAD2008 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of "F" type residential accommodation in the P.I.M.S. Colony, Islamabad, involving competing claims by the petitioner and various respondents. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously remanded the case to the appellate authority for reconsideration without deciding the merits. The petitioner challenged this, asserting a preferential right to allotment based on seniority under the relevant allocation rules. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon review, noted that the allotment process for P.I.M.S. employees had shifted to the Departmental Allotment Committee following the promulgation of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The Court held that the Tribunal should have ensured the matter was resolved according to the established regulatory framework. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and directed the Departmental Allotment Committee to examine the respective cases of the petitioner and the respondents in strict accordance with the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, mandating a final decision within one month. This judgment reinforces the necessity of adhering to prescribed administrative procedures for government housing allotments.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to remand a service matter to an appellate authority instead of deciding it on merits?
- How is seniority determined for the allotment of government accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
- Are employees of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (P.I.M.S.) entitled to government accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
- MIR ALAM Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS2008 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order directing the Registrar of Trade Unions to hold fresh union elections and allowing dismissed employees to participate. The core legal question was whether the High Court could permit employees, whose dismissal from service was currently under appeal, to participate in union elections and effectively reinstate their status as workers during the pendency of their service appeals. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court erred by ignoring the pendency of the respondents' service appeals. By allowing the dismissed employees to participate in elections, the High Court effectively pre-judged the merits of their pending service appeals, which was legally impermissible. The key principle laid down is that a court cannot grant relief in collateral proceedings, such as union election matters, that effectively decides the outcome of substantive service appeals pending before it, as dismissed employees cannot be treated as workers until their appeals are adjudicated in their favor.
Questions settled- Can a High Court order fresh union elections involving dismissed employees whose service appeals are pending?
- Does an order allowing dismissed employees to participate in union elections effectively decide their pending service appeals?
- Can a person whose employment has been terminated and whose appeal is pending participate in union activities as a worker?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus NAZIR AHMED2008 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order remanding a civil suit for pre-emption to the trial court. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the plaintiff's evidence and dismiss the suit forthwith due to the non-production of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in its application of the law. The Court clarified that the provision allowing a court to 'proceed to decide the suit forthwith' does not authorize the summary dismissal of a suit without providing the party an opportunity to testify or proceed with the next step in the litigation, especially when the party is present. The Court emphasized that the law favors adjudication on merits over technical dismissal. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the remand order, ruling that the trial court should have allowed the plaintiff to testify rather than closing the evidence and dismissing the suit immediately.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'proceed to decide the suit forthwith' in Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 authorize a court to dismiss a suit immediately?
- Is a trial court required to allow a party to testify if they are present in court, even if they failed to produce other evidence on the scheduled date?
- Can a trial court invoke Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close evidence and dismiss a suit when the case was not specifically fixed for the production of that evidence?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus State2008 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Ilyas against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his death sentence for the Qatl-e-Amd of his cousin. The core legal question concerns the determination of the appropriate quantum of sentence, specifically whether the alternative sentence of life imprisonment should be awarded in place of the death penalty due to the petitioner's alleged drug addiction and impaired mental faculties. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any material on record showing that the petitioner's mental faculties were adversely affected at the time of the offense, and given the concurrent findings of the lower courts establishing guilt for a fatal solitary injury inflicted following a refusal of money, there was no justification to impose a lesser sentence. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether drug addiction and alleged impairment of mental faculties constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can a high court consider the merits of a criminal appeal even when the appellant's counsel chooses not to press the appeal on merits and contests only the quantum of sentence?
- Are concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the high court unexceptionable when supported by material aspects of the case and an unproven plea of simplicitor denial?
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus State2008 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner-convict sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Balochistan High Court confirming his conviction and death sentence for murder, handed down after a trial conducted in absentia by a Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the trial of an accused person in absentia is validly and legally conducted under the law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the petition, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial Court to the extent of the petitioner, and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The Court held that conducting a trial in absentia violates Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution and section 10(11-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as it denies the accused the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice and condemns them unheard, which runs contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether the trial of an accused person in absentia is validly and legally conducted?
- Does a trial conducted in absentia violate Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a trial in absentia under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 violative of section 10(11-A) of the said Act?
- Haji MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus State2008 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a post-arrest bail application. The petitioners, charged with offences including dispossession and hurt, argued that since the offences fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail should be granted as a matter of right. The core legal question was whether bail is an absolute right in such cases, particularly where the accused allegedly acted with the connivance of state officials. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of bail, holding that the petitioners' actions—forcibly dispossessing the complainant with the assistance of police and revenue officials—constituted a severe violation of the rule of law. The Court affirmed that while bail is generally the rule for non-prohibitory offences, it is not an absolute right. Courts retain the discretion to deny bail in exceptional circumstances, such as where the accused has demonstrated blatant lawlessness or exploited state machinery to perpetrate crimes, thereby justifying the continued detention of the accused pending trial.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail a matter of right for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court deny bail in cases falling within the non-prohibitory clause due to exceptional circumstances?
- Does the connivance of state officials in the commission of an offence constitute a valid ground for refusing bail?
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus State2008 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from jail petitions filed against the Balochistan High Court judgments upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with sections 6(i) and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance 1965 read with section 6(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the conviction based on delayed FIR, delayed arrest, and an identification parade conducted by the investigating officer meets the standard of safe administration of criminal justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal for reappraisal of the evidence to ascertain proper adherence to the principles for the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal will be granted for reappraisal of evidence where serious questions regarding the admissibility and reliability of evidence on a capital charge are raised.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted for reappraisal of evidence when the conviction is based on allegedly inadmissible evidence?
- Does an identification parade conducted under the supervision of the investigating officer meet the requirements for safe administration of criminal justice?
- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained when the petitioner's name did not appear in the FIR and the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus State2008 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Noor Muhammad, and the dismissal of the appeal of co-petitioner, Haq Nawaz, for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with others, attacked the complainant party, resulting in the death of the deceased. The trial court convicted the petitioners, though it acquitted other co-accused. The core legal questions concern whether the conviction of the petitioners can be sustained on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of their co-accused, and whether the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful due to the lack of forensic matching between recovered weapons and crime scene empties, alongside the absence of a proven motive connecting the petitioners to the crime. The Supreme Court, noting the lack of forensic evidence linking the recovered firearms to the crime and the failure to connect the petitioners to the alleged motive, granted leave to appeal to examine the sustainability of the convictions.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of an accused be maintained on the same set of evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused persons?
- Does the failure to match recovered firearms with crime scene empties create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to connect the accused to the alleged motive?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus State2008 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court whereby bail sought by the petitioner in a case registered under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was declined. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the role attributed to him and his subsequent absconsion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was directly attributed with firing at the complainant resulting in injuries, and the case fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making him disentitled to bail as a rule. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, establishing that direct attribution of a firearm injury placing the case within the prohibitory clause justifies the refusal of bail, notwithstanding arguments regarding non-sensitive injury areas or the precise legal categorization pending trial.
Questions settled- Does a direct role of firing resulting in injury bring a case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether absconsion is a relevant factor to be considered in bail matters even if it may not be conclusive proof of guilt?
- Does the absence of injury on a sensitive part of the body automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in an attempt to murder case?
- ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q. Versus ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI Akhtar Ali Mehmood , Nemo2008 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAHIM YAR KHAN2008 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-07Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ HAMID Versus L.D.A. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah , Nemo2008 SCMR 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-07-30Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ HAMID Versus L.D.A.2008 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus State2008 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application seeking permission to compromise an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a jail petition challenging the conviction and sentence of death. The petitioner was convicted for the murder of his daughter. The core legal question was whether a father who kills his child is liable to Qisas and whether a compromise between the legal heirs can be accepted in such circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being the father of the victim, was not liable to Qisas under Section 306(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but was liable to Ta'zir and Diyat under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Since the mother of the deceased, the sole remaining legal heir, voluntarily compounded the offence and forgave the petitioner without compensation, the compromise was accepted. The Court laid down that a father not liable to Qisas for the murder of his child remains liable to Diyat and Ta'zir imprisonment, with the quantum of Ta'zir governed by the law as it stood at the time of the offence.
Questions settled- Is a father liable to Qisas for the murder of his child?
- What punishments are attracted when an offender guilty of Qatl-e-Amd is not liable to Qisas under Section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a legal heir compound an offence of Qatl-e-Amd and waive Diyat?
- Which version of Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding Ta'zir imprisonment applies when an offence was committed prior to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2004?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State2008 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-09-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Pervez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad , M. Akbar Tarar2008 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus State M. Zaman Bhatti with Safdar brother2008 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a criminal petition where a compromise was attempted between the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question involves the validity and implementation of a compromise in a case of Ta'zir rather than Qisas, specifically regarding the entitlement of the mother of the deceased to Badl-i-Sulh when she has not waived her right unlike the father. The Court held that in a case of Ta'zir, a compromise must proceed from all legal heirs, and directed the petitioner-convict to deposit a specified sum as Badl-i-Sulh compensation. The key principle laid down is that for compromises in Ta'zir matters, all legal heirs must participate, and non-waiving heirs remain entitled to compensation.
Questions settled- Must a compromise in a case of Ta'zir come from all legal heirs?
- Is a mother entitled to Badl-i-Sulh compensation if she has not waived her right while the father has?
- What are the legal requirements under the Pakistan Penal Code for effecting a compromise when only one parent waives their right?
- MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus State Rai M. Tufail Khan Kharal , Chaudhry Munir Sadiq2008 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined the petitioner's bail plea in a case involving a charge of Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was initially found innocent during the police investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet, was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that other co-accused similarly situated had been granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case was identical to that of the co-accused who were found innocent during the investigation and subsequently released. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court determined that the petitioner was entitled to equal treatment under the law. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, converted the petition into an appeal, and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the provision of solvent surety. The judgment reaffirms that where co-accused share identical circumstances, the principle of consistency dictates they should receive uniform treatment regarding bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if co-accused with identical circumstances have been granted bail?
- Does the fact that an accused was placed in Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet entitle them to bail when summoned by the trial court?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus State Niaz Ahmad Rathore , Mehmood Raza, Additional Advocate-General Balochistan and Ms. Yasmin Sehgal2008 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from jail petitions filed by petitioners who were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Rauf and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Noshki, which conviction was upheld by the High Court of Balochistan. During the pendency of the jail petitions, the parties entered into a compromise outside the court. The core legal question concerned the acceptance of a compromise and the compounding of the murder offence after conviction. The Supreme Court held that since the Sessions Judge verified and confirmed the authenticity of the compromise and the payment of Diyat to the legal heirs, permission to compound the offence was granted. The key principle laid down is that where a genuine compromise is reached between the parties in a murder case and verified by the trial court, the offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be compounded, leading to the release of the convicts.
Questions settled- Can an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded on the basis of a compromise reached after conviction?
- What is the procedure for verifying a compromise between parties in a criminal case before the Supreme Court?
- Whether convicts can be released immediately upon the acceptance of a compromise and payment of Diyat?
- MUHAMMAD ALI S. BUKHARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui , A.S.K. Ghouri2008 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-28Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Versus ATAULLAH ANJUM Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui , Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Sher Muhammad Khan2008 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent's appeal, reinstated him with consequential benefits, and permitted the petitioner-Department to proceed afresh. The respondent, a civil servant, was retired from service after completing 25 years of service under Section 13(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, following allegations of misconduct, corruption, and inefficiency. The core legal question is whether retirement under Section 13(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 requires a regular departmental inquiry equivalent to compulsory retirement as a penalty. The Supreme Court held that retirement under Section 13(1) is distinct from compulsory retirement by way of penalty and does not contemplate a regular inquiry; the only requirement under subsection (2) is informing the civil servant in writing of the grounds and affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does retirement from service after completing 25 years of service under Section 13(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 require a regular departmental inquiry?
- What are the procedural requirements under Section 13(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 for retiring a civil servant after 25 years of service?
- Can retirement under Section 13(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 be equated with compulsory retirement imposed as a penalty?
- QAMAR HAYAT KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM M.A. Zafar2008 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment, which acquitted two respondents of murder charges by extending the benefit of doubt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of the prosecution evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had meticulously examined the record, correctly identifying that the FIR was likely registered after deliberation at the crime scene. The High Court also properly noted that the prosecution witnesses were inimical toward the accused and were "chance witnesses" whose testimony lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the High Court correctly observed material improvements in the complainant's deposition intended to align with medical evidence, and noted that the recovery of weapons was inconsequential due to the absence of matching crime empties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning was sound, factual, and legally unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal, ruling that no grounds existed to interfere with the High Court's findings, and dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of inimical chance witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Is the recovery of weapons inconsequential if no crime empties are recovered to link them to the crime scene?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that has meticulously reappraised evidence and extended the benefit of doubt?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus State M. Zaman Bhatti2008 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the petitioner sought a reduction of sentence. It was contended that the petitioner is the real brother of the complainant, was seventy years of age at the time of the incident, is a weak and infirm person, and was unable to actively participate in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the petitioner mentioned his age as eighty years in his jail petition, which constitutes an extenuating circumstance warranting consideration for sentence reduction. The core legal question concerns whether advanced age and physical infirmity, along with circumstances of participation, can serve as extenuating grounds for reducing a sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this contention.
Questions settled- Whether advanced age and physical infirmity can be considered as an extenuating circumstance for the reduction of a sentence?
- Does the inability to actively participate in the commission of an offence warrant a lesser sentence?
- TARIQ MAHMOOD Versus State2008 SCMR 1631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order passed by the Islamabad High Court upholding the transfer of a criminal case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court of criminal jurisdiction. The petitioner, complainant in an F.I.R. regarding a murder and assault involving firearms, argued that the use of automatic weapons in a public place and the injury of a passerby brought the case within the ambit of anti-terrorism legislation. The core legal question was whether a crime stemming from a private land dispute, accompanied by firearm use, constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Supreme Court held that the case involved a personal grudge rather than acts aimed at striking terror among the masses or weakening the State, and that criminal cases should ordinarily be tried by courts of plenary jurisdiction unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a murder resulting from a private property dispute automatically fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 merely because automatic weapons were used?
- When is a criminal case appropriately transferred from an Anti-Terrorism Court to a court of ordinary jurisdiction?
- Does the mere use of firearms during a crime create the sense of fear and insecurity required to attract anti-terrorism provisions?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI Versus State2008 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1100 grams of Charas. The petitioner was originally sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. After his appeal was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, he approached the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the sentence imposed given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the duration of the petitioner's incarceration. The Supreme Court, noting that the petitioner had already served a significant portion of his sentence and considering the relatively small quantity of contraband involved, exercised its discretion to modify the sentence. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it, reducing the sentence from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine. The judgment affirms the principle that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce sentences in narcotics cases based on the specific circumstances, such as the quantity of contraband and the period of pre-conviction detention already served.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment in a narcotics case based on the quantity of contraband recovered?
- Is it appropriate to reduce a sentence where the accused has already served a major portion of the substantive sentence?
- SHAHID Versus State2008 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which had declined to suspend the petitioner's sentence of life imprisonment pending the disposal of his criminal appeal. The petitioner, convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that the Investigating Officer found no injury caused by him, no weapon was recovered from his possession, and co-accused facing the same evidence were acquitted. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had already appraised the prosecution evidence and found the petitioner guilty. The Court held that at the stage of a bail or suspension of sentence application, a deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible. Finding that a prima facie case was established and noting the severity of the sentence, the Court concluded that it was inappropriate to interfere with the High Court's order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that sentence suspension requires more than mere contentions regarding evidence when a conviction has already been secured by a trial court.
Questions settled- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when a trial court has already convicted the accused based on an appraisal of evidence?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of an application for suspension of sentence?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence automatically entitle a convicted petitioner to suspension of sentence?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus State2008 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a petition challenging the Lahore High Court's order declining post-arrest bail to the appellant in a murder case. The core legal questions pertained to whether the belated implication of an accused person via a supplementary statement, combined with unexplained delay in recording prosecution witnesses' statements, brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the rule of consistency applies where a similarly placed co-accused was granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and confirmed the appellant's bail. The Court held that a supplementary statement recorded during investigation cannot be equated with or treated as part of the First Information Report; a departure by the complainant from the original FIR without explanation renders the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, an unexplained delay of 74 days in recording eyewitness statements raises an inference of deliberation, and the principle of consistency justified extending bail to the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether a supplementary statement recorded during investigation can be equated with or read as part of the First Information Report?
- Whether the implication of an un-nominated accused through a supplementary statement without explaining how their identity became known brings the matter within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the stage of bail?
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail?
- MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, M/o Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad2008 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-27Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus State2008 SCMR 1451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sher Muhammad impugning the order of the Lahore High Court dated 25-6-2003, whereby pre-trial bail was refused to him in a case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Atta Shaheed, Sargodha, for the murder of Khadim Hussain. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the specific role attributed to him of causing a firearm injury to the deceased, which was corroborated by the post-mortem report. The Supreme Court held that prima facie, there were sufficient grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty of the charged offence, and consequently, no case for bail was made out. The key legal principle laid down is that where ocular and medical evidence prima facie connect an accused to a capital charge involving a firearm injury, bail ought to be refused.
Questions settled- Is an accused charged under section 302/34 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to bail when a firearm injury is attributed to him and corroborated by a post-mortem report?
- Whether sufficient grounds to believe the accused is guilty of a capital offence disentitle him to post-arrest bail?
- RAB NAWAZ Versus Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI2008 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the proper proof and performance of the essential pre-requisite of Talb-i-Muwathibat (first demand) under the law of pre-emption, particularly when made through an attorney or guardian on behalf of minor plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the expression of Talb is an essential element of the right of pre-emption, and where the attorney or father/guardian fails to state that he made the first demand upon receiving information of the sale, and the plaintiffs themselves fail to appear to testify regarding the same, the claim fails. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, ruling that the dismissal of the pre-emption suit was unexceptionable, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a plaintiff or his attorney to establish the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat results in the dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
- Can a guardian or father maintain a pre-emption claim on behalf of minors without proving the making of the first demand?
- Is the testimony of an attorney sufficient to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat when the principals fail to appear and depose during the trial?
- GHULAM RASOOL RANJHA Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Province of Punjab, Lahore2008 SCMR 1265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four petitions for leave to appeal were filed against an order of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeals concerning his dismissal from service and adverse ACRs for the years 1997 to 1999. The petitioner, a judicial officer, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 following complaints of illegal gratification. An inquiry officer conducted an inquiry and concluded that the charges of corruption and misconduct were proved. Consequently, the competent authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner sought the conversion of his penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement on compassionate grounds, citing thirty-six years of service. The Supreme Court held that corruption is the highest degree of disqualification for a judicial officer and cannot be permitted. Finding the charge of corruption proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence and noting the petitioner's bad reputation, the court refused to grant any leniency or reduce the punishment. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.
Questions settled- Can a penalty of dismissal from service imposed on a judicial officer for proved corruption be converted to compulsory retirement on compassionate grounds?
- Whether long service duration grants any premium or leniency against a finding of corruption amounting to misconduct in service law?
- LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE Versus MASOOD UMAR KHAN2008 SCMR 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT2008 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which modified the penalty imposed on a Civil Judge First Class from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement following disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary charges against the appellant included allegations of corruption, judicial impropriety, and misconduct, specifically regarding unauthorized absences, poor judicial conduct, and the demand for illegal gratification. While an inquiry officer found some charges unproven, the competent authority initially ordered dismissal, which the Tribunal subsequently mitigated. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's findings regarding the appellant's guilt and the subsequent modification of the penalty were legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding judicial impropriety and indiscipline were free from legal infirmity or misreading of the record. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal possesses the requisite authority to confirm, modify, vary, or revise the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial question of law of public importance to warrant interference under Article 212 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to modify the quantum of punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer?
- Does a challenge to the findings of a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary action against a civil judge necessarily raise a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus State2008 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Abdul Majeed, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Fazal Karim. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence in the absence of corroborative physical recoveries such as blood-stained earth and bullet empties. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of natural and closely-related eye-witnesses, whose presence was established by prompt lodging of the First Information Report and corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court laid down that minor investigative lapses, such as the failure to collect blood-stained earth or failure of the investigating officer to secure blood-stained clothing, do not discredit otherwise reliable ocular testimony, and that the absence or weakness of motive does not mitigate the normal penalty of death in a clear case of premeditated murder.
Questions settled- Can an accused's conviction for murder be sustained on ocular testimony alone when no blood-stained earth or bullet empties are recovered from the crime scene?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to collect blood-stained clothing or earth vitiate the prosecution case?
- Whether inefficiency or weakness of motive can be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of death to a lesser punishment?
- Does the close relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable without independent corroboration?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus State M. Zaman Bhatti , Nemo2008 SCMR 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a criminal conviction and sentence. The core legal question concerns the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner in light of evidentiary discrepancies. The Supreme Court heard the petitioner's counsel and noted a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, specifically observing that the fatal injury was not attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the court held that leave to appeal ought to be granted to thoroughly examine the legality of the petitioner's conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that where material conflicts exist between ocular and medical evidence and the fatal blow is not directly attributed to the accused, a fit case is made out for granting leave to appeal to examine the soundness of the conviction.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between medical and ocular evidence where the fatal injury is not attributed to the petitioner warrant the grant of leave to appeal against a conviction?
- Is leave to appeal properly granted to consider the legality of a conviction and sentence when evidentiary inconsistencies exist?
- MEMBER (A.C.E. & S.T.), FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF2008 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions filed by the Federal Board of Revenue against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which modified penalties imposed on customs officials for negligence and procedural lapses during the clearance of goods. The core legal question was whether the penalties imposed by the Authority were legally sustainable when they failed to specify a duration, contrary to service rules. The Supreme Court held that the penalties were indeed defective as they lacked a specified timeframe, violating Fundamental Rule 29, which requires that reductions in rank or time-scale must state the effective period. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to modify the penalties, emphasizing that in service matters, punishment should be reformatory rather than purely deterrent, particularly where negligence lacks the element of wilful misconduct. The key principle laid down is that any penalty involving reduction to a lower grade or time-scale must explicitly state the period for which it is effective to comply with the requirements of Fundamental Rule 29.
Questions settled- Does a penalty of reduction in time-scale imposed without a specified duration violate Fundamental Rule 29?
- Can a penalty imposed by a departmental authority be modified by the Federal Service Tribunal on the grounds of being indefinite?
- Is a lack of proper care and vigilance in service matters always equivalent to wilful misconduct warranting severe punishment?
- BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Versus KHALIL AHMAD2008 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a civil suit filed by a former employee (clerk) challenging his reduction in rank resulting from departmental disciplinary proceedings. The core legal question was whether the civil suit was maintainable in light of the ouster of jurisdiction provisions contained in sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, and whether such an objection could be raised for the first time before the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the question of ouster of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring a proper factual foundation, an issue to be framed, and an opportunity for evidence at the trial court stage. Since the Board failed to raise this objection in its written statement or during trial, and did not challenge the concurrent findings on limitation, the objection could not be entertained.
Questions settled- Can the objection regarding the ouster of jurisdiction of a Civil Court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does section 29 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 completely oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to examine actions taken by the Board?
- What is the scope of protection of acts and orders under section 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976?
- FAZAL AHMAD NASEEM GONDAL Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT2008 SCMR 1144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed by a former Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate challenging his dismissal from service due to findings of misconduct and corruption. The appellant, previously dismissed following a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, contended that the penalty was disproportionate given his long service record and that the evidence was misappreciated. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and whether the findings of misconduct were supported by the record. The Supreme Court observed that the inquiry officer had properly considered substantial evidence, including numerous transfer applications alleging corruption and complaints from the District Bar regarding the appellant's integrity. The Court held that the appellant was afforded a full opportunity of personal hearing and had cross-examined witnesses, thereby refuting claims of being condemned unheard. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the inquiry proceedings, the Court upheld the dismissal, establishing the principle that where disciplinary inquiries are conducted in accordance with due process and evidence supports the findings, judicial interference is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim immunity from disciplinary action based on a long service record?
- Does the failure to respond to departmental representations invalidate a dismissal order?
- What constitutes a fair and proper inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999?
- Is the dismissal of a judicial officer for misconduct sustainable when the officer was afforded a personal hearing and cross-examination opportunities?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others Versus AMIR ZAMAN SHINWARI, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER2008 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-01-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus State2008 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7(i)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his co-accused fired upon a police patrol party, resulting in the death of a constable and injuries to another. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, which was affirmed by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the ocular and medical evidence, noting that the eyewitnesses remained consistent and credible despite lengthy cross-examination. However, addressing the question of sentence, the Court held that where it is uncertain whose specific firearm shot caused the fatal injury among multiple armed assailants, it constitutes a mitigating circumstance justifying a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon as eyewitnesses without independent corroboration?
- Does uncertainty regarding whose specific shot caused the fatal death among multiple armed assailants constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when eyewitness testimony remains unshaken?
- SAHIB KHAN Versus State2008 SCMR 1049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for committing the murder of the deceased. The primary legal questions concerned whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses was credible without independent corroboration, whether the defense plea of alibi was substantiated, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the prompt lodging of the First Information Report established the natural presence of the eyewitnesses. The Court reaffirmed that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased is no ground to discredit straightforward, confidence-inspiring testimony, that the plea of alibi requires convincing or documentary proof which the defense failed to establish, and that motive functions as a double-edged weapon.
Questions settled- Whether the mere relationship of prosecution eyewitnesses to the deceased is sufficient ground to discredit their testimony in a murder case?
- What standard of evidence is required to substantiate a criminal defense plea of alibi?
- Whether the prompt registration of an FIR without unexplained delay supports the natural presence and credibility of the eyewitnesses?
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State2008 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2008-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which affirmed the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance witnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and delayed weapon recovery, and the proof of motive. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful, that delayed F.I.R.s recorded outside the police station raise presumptions of deliberation, that suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and that unverified weapon recoveries without ballistic matching or independent witnesses hold no evidentiary value.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without convincing explanation and strong independent corroboration?
- Can a delayed first information report recorded outside the police station be viewed with a presumption of deliberation?
- Does the recovery of a weapon without sending it to a forensic expert and without associating independent witnesses hold evidentiary value?
- Can strong suspicion take the place of legal proof in a criminal trial?
- Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM and others Versus Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM2007 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Mst. NASIR BIBI and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD2007 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- SHAHID HUSSAIN ABBASI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. EDUCATLON DEPARTMENT2007 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 7th December, 2005. The appellant, appointed as a lecturer in law in 1987 and regularized in 1988, obtained an LL.M. degree during his service, which was certified as equivalent to an M.Phil. He sought advance increments pursuant to the Government of N.-W.F.P. Finance Department's policy notification dated August 1983. The department and the Service Tribunal rejected his request on the ground that he did not possess the qualification at the time of induction into service. The Supreme Court held that paragraph 10(iii) of the relevant policy explicitly allows advance increments as an incentive to employees who obtain a higher degree while in service. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed the department to grant the appellant the advance increments, establishing that acquiring higher qualifications during service qualifies an employee for advance increments under the applicable government incentive policy.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who acquires a higher educational qualification during service is entitled to advance increments under the relevant government policy?
- Whether the condition of possessing a higher qualification at the time of induction into service is a prerequisite for advance increments aimed at incentivizing in-service educational improvement?
- Whether an LL.M. degree obtained during service, certified as equivalent to an M.Phil, qualifies an educationist for advance increments under the N.-W.F.P. Finance Department policy?
- Begum Syeda AZRA MASOOD Versus Begum NOSHABA MOEEN2007 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED2007 SCMR 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAHBAN and others Versus FALAK SHER2007 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-28Read full judgment →
- HAKIM-UD-DIN through L.Rs. and others Versus FAIZ BAKHSH2007 SCMR 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID and others Versus Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM2007 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL2007 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION)2007 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from petitions filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal denying back-benefits to the petitioners upon their reinstatement in service as PTC Teachers following fresh inquiry proceedings where the charges against them were not proved. The core legal question is whether an illegally removed employee, upon exoneration and reinstatement, is entitled to back-benefits as a general rule unless proven gainfully employed. The Supreme Court held that the grant of service back-benefits to an employee illegally kept away from employment is the rule, while denial is an exception applicable only upon proof of gainful employment during the interregnum. The Court laid down that the burden lies to prove gainful employment, that evasive denials of assertions in pleadings do not constitute valid rebuttal, and that the Service Tribunal must exercise judicial application of mind when adjudicating service appeals.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who is exonerated and reinstated in service is entitled to back-benefits as a rule?
- Does the denial of back-benefits require proof that the reinstated employee remained gainfully employed during the relevant period?
- Can an evasive reply to an averment made in an appeal before the Service Tribunal be considered a valid denial in law?
- What are the consequences when the Service Tribunal fails to apply its judicial mind to the pleadings of the parties?
- RASOOL BUKHSH and another Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN2007 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-29Read full judgment →
- LAL MUHAMMAD KALHORO and others Versus State2007 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the legality of cancelling pre-arrest bail without considering the incriminating material on record or providing cogent reasons, and whether bail can be refused by way of punishment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail without referring to any specific incriminating evidence and noted that bail cannot be refused as a form of punishment or where the case falls outside the prohibitory clause and involves documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution. The key principle laid down is that the initial presumption of innocence must be maintained, liberty cannot be curtailed without accordance with law, and bail should not be refused for the purpose of punishment.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled by the High Court without citing specific incriminating evidence or providing cogent reasons?
- Does the refusal of bail amount to punishment when an accused is entitled to its grant?
- Can bail be refused in cases where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN Versus Khawaja MUHAMMAD JAWAD ASAMI2007 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-06Read full judgment →
- GUL KANJEER KHAN and others Versus Subedar UMER KHATAB2007 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-21Read full judgment →
- ALAM KHAN Versus Mst. NIGHAT IRAM ALAM2007 SCMR 794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-05Read full judgment →
- BINYAMIN alias KHARI and others Versus State2007 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether a conviction for a capital offense can be sustained primarily on the basis of circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last-seen' evidence and departure evidence, when direct eyewitness testimony is absent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that while last-seen evidence is generally considered a weak form of proof, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction, including capital punishment, provided it forms an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the appellate court, based on a proper appreciation of evidence—including the recovery of the dead body and corroborating medical evidence—are not typically subject to interference. The key principle laid down is that circumstantial evidence, when logical, reasonable, and forming a complete chain, is a legally recognized and sufficient mode to establish guilt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
- Is 'last-seen' evidence sufficient to connect an accused to a crime if corroborated by other circumstances?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- QADIR BAKHSH and 2 others Versus WAHID BAKHSH2007 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court confirming an interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The appellants challenged the injunction, arguing that the High Court lacked the authority to stay proceedings on the revenue side, citing Section 56(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant an injunction to stay proceedings of a court or authority not subordinate to it. The Supreme Court observed that the litigation over the interlocutory matter had persisted for over six years, causing unnecessary delay. The Court held that the High Court acted justifiably in granting the injunction to avoid further complications and the multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, declining to interfere with the High Court's discretion, and directed that the main Regular First Appeal be decided by the competent court within three months. The judgment emphasizes the court's inherent power to manage proceedings to prevent procedural abuse and multiplicity of litigation.
Questions settled- Can a High Court grant an injunction to stay proceedings of a court or authority not subordinate to it?
- Is the grant of a temporary injunction justified to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court when the main appeal remains pending?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus State2007 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner and upheld his conviction and sentence of death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the sufficiency of identification in a late-night domestic occurrence, and the plausibility of the defence plea regarding nocturnal homicide. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on the testimonies of natural and reliable eyewitnesses whose presence at the scene was established, and that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution timeline without material contradictions. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the testimony of a natural witness in a domestic murder, when unimpeached and supported by prompt reporting and medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a natural eyewitness in a domestic murder case is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
- Does a discrepancy in the medical post-mortem duration alone render the prosecution's time of occurrence doubtful?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding a criminal conviction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Whether an accused can successfully raise a defence of alternative homicide without establishing the motive or presence of alleged third parties?
- TANVEER HUSSAIN Versus RAVI RYAN LIMITED through Managing Director2007 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the appellant's grievance petition by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to condone a delay in the issuance of a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, via Section 65-B of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the lower forums erred in denying this jurisdiction. The Court determined that the phrase 'any other thing is to be done' in Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is broad and unambiguous, extending the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to all acts required under the Ordinance, including the issuance of a grievance notice. Consequently, the Court established the principle that Labour Courts have the authority to condone delays in grievance notices upon sufficient cause being shown, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on limitation.
Questions settled- Does the Labour Court have the jurisdiction to condone a delay in the issuance of a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, make the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applicable to acts required to be done prior to the filing of a grievance petition?
- Is the phrase 'any other thing is to be done' in Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, applicable to the issuance of a grievance notice?
- Syed ASHFAQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI2007 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition challenged a Supreme Court judgment that had previously set aside a Sindh Service Tribunal order regarding an employee's premature retirement. The petitioner, an employee of N.E.D. University, contended his retirement application was obtained under duress by the Vice-Chancellor. The core legal questions concerned the validity of retracting a retirement option and whether the issue of limitation regarding a departmental appeal could be raised if the departmental authority had not dismissed the appeal on that ground. The Supreme Court held that the retirement option was void ab initio due to duress and could be withdrawn before becoming effective. Furthermore, the Court ruled that if a departmental authority does not dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation, that objection cannot be subsequently raised before the Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that no inflexible rule mandates the finality of a retirement option, and findings of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding coercion, if based on cogent reasons, warrant no interference. The review petition was allowed, and the Service Tribunal's order was restored.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant withdraw an application for premature retirement before it becomes effective?
- Is an option for premature retirement obtained under duress void ab initio?
- Can the objection of limitation regarding a departmental appeal be raised before the Service Tribunal if the departmental authority did not dismiss the appeal on that ground?
- REHMATULLAH and others Versus SALEH KHAN2007 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PERVEZ and others Versus State2007 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for offences including dacoity and murder, originally sentenced by the trial court and upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and voluntariness of a judicial confession, the validity of an identification parade, and the reliability of ocular evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the judicial confession was involuntary, citing a significant delay in recording it and evidence of police torture. Furthermore, the Court determined that the identification parade was legally flawed because the prosecution witnesses had observed the accused prior to the parade. Additionally, the Court found that the ocular testimony suffered from material contradictions and was inconsistent with the medical evidence, rendering it unreliable. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a confession recorded after an unexplained delay, especially when coupled with allegations of torture, is inadmissible, and that identification proceedings are vitiated if witnesses have prior access to the accused.
Questions settled- Does a delay of over 24 hours in recording a judicial confession, without explanation, render the confession involuntary?
- Is an identification parade valid if the prosecution witnesses have seen the accused persons prior to the parade?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular evidence that contains material contradictions and is inconsistent with medical evidence?
- Does evidence of physical injuries on an accused, supported by medical examination, cast doubt on the voluntariness of a confession?
- ABDUL REHMAN through L.Rs. Versus Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus Khawaja KHALIL-UR-REHMAN2007 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-04Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and another Versus ABDUL RASHID LANGOVE2007 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-04Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED Versus FAYYAZ AHMED2007 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a jail petition arising from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which modified a conviction for rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) to consensual intercourse (Zina-bil-Raza). The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court erred in law and fact by reducing the sentence and altering the conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, based on a reappraisal of evidence regarding the victim's consent and physical condition. The Supreme Court dismissed both the appeal and the petition, holding that the Federal Shariat Court correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction to reappraise evidence and modify the conviction. The Court found no illegality in the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish Zina-bil-Jabr beyond doubt, justifying the conversion to Zina-bil-Raza. The judgment affirms that appellate courts possess wide powers under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to alter convictions, provided the altered conviction is one that the trial court could have legally recorded, and that the Federal Shariat Court is empowered to examine questions of fact and law in such cases.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Shariat Court alter a conviction from Zina-bil-Jabr to Zina-bil-Raza upon reappraisal of evidence?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases arising under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- What are the limitations on the powers of an appellate court when altering a conviction under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Miss SHAZIA BATOOL Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2007 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the admission policy of Bolan Medical College, Quetta, specifically the district-wise allocation of seats and the bifurcation of Quetta District into urban and rural categories. The appellant, a medical college applicant, contended that these quotas were discriminatory and violated Articles 2-A, 22, 25, and 37(c) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, arguing that admissions should be based solely on provincial merit. The core legal question was whether such district-wise quotas and classifications constituted reasonable classification or violated fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, by a majority, held that the admission policy was not unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that allocating seats based on districts and agencies, particularly to support students from backward and underdeveloped areas, constitutes a reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the objective of fostering genuine equality in education. Consequently, the Court affirmed that such policies do not violate constitutional guarantees of equality and dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to maintain the existing admission framework.
Questions settled- Is the allocation of medical college seats based on district-wise quotas unconstitutional?
- Can the government create reasonable classifications for admission to professional colleges to accommodate students from backward areas?
- Does the bifurcation of a district into urban and rural areas for seat allocation violate the principle of equality?
- FAROOQ MENGAL Versus THE STATE through A.-G. Sindh, Karachi2007 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner, who was charged with the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the retracted judicial confession of a co-accused and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the intrinsic value and credibility of a retracted judicial confession, along with the weight of circumstantial evidence, cannot be definitively assessed at the bail stage. The Court affirmed that a retracted judicial confession, if found truthful and confidence-inspiring, can be relied upon, and that a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage does not warrant a conclusion that the case is one of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that superior courts should not decide bail applications on merits when a trial is ongoing, as such an exercise may prejudice the trial proceedings. The petition was dismissed, with a directive to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession be considered for the purpose of bail?
- Is a case based on a retracted judicial confession and circumstantial evidence automatically a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should superior courts decide the merits of a case during bail proceedings when the trial is already in progress?
- SAIFUR REHMAN and another Versus SHER MUHAMMAD through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ Versus Sheikh FATEH MUHAMMAD2007 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE2007 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. MARYAM BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ALI through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored an executing court's order regarding a compromise decree in a pre-emption suit. The original pre-emption suit was dismissed by the first appellate court, but during the pendency of a regular second appeal, the parties entered into a compromise where the petitioners agreed to surrender one-third of the disputed land to the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents withdrew their deposited decretal amount and pre-emption money unconditionally and initiated execution proceedings without paying any proportionate consideration for the land surrendered. The core legal question concerned the proper construction of the ambiguous compromise deed and whether the respondents were entitled to receive the land without paying proportionate consideration. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that documents and compromises must be construed by examining the true intention of the parties and the equities of the case. The Court ruled that the petitioners could not be expected to surrender land without receiving proportionate consideration, and directed simultaneous payment of the price and handing over of possession.
Questions settled- Whether the question of proper construction of a document is a question of law or of fact?
- Can a party claim land under a compromise decree without paying the proportionate consideration when the compromise deed is silent on the matter?
- How should courts construe a compromise agreement or document containing omissions regarding consideration?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus State2007 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had upheld the convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The prosecution case was that the petitioners abducted a woman and her grandmother, whereafter petitioner Muhammad Bashir murdered the grandmother upon her intervention, and petitioner Muhammad Latif committed forcible Zina with the woman. The trial court convicted Muhammad Bashir under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death, while Muhammad Latif was convicted under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The Federal Shariat Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Upon perusing the entire evidence with the assistance of defense counsel, the Supreme Court found no ground for interference with the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the jail petition and upheld the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentencing by the trial court and the Federal Shariat Court when supported by evidence?
- LIAQAT ALI Versus State2007 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Liaqat Ali, was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Zulfiqar and Ghulam Mustafa following a petty quarrel between children, and was sentenced to death on two counts. His conviction was upheld by both the trial court and the High Court. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court examined the record and found no legal or factual infirmity in the concurrent findings of guilt, noting that the eyewitnesses were natural witnesses with no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The court addressed the question of quantum of sentence, holding that the callous and reckless manner of the killings over a petty dispute warranted no leniency. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of guilt recorded by lower courts in a murder case warrant interference when eyewitness testimony is reliable and natural?
- Does a petty quarrel between children serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence for a double murder?
- Are related eyewitnesses considered reliable when they are natural witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence?
- NAJEEBULLAH KHAN Versus State2007 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for transfer of a criminal case arises from the conduct of the trial court in refusing an adjournment requested due to the absence of the petitioners' senior counsel and instead appointing a defence counsel at state expense in a murder trial. The core legal question is whether the refusal of adjournment and appointment of state counsel demonstrates bias or partiality warranting the transfer of the case. The Supreme Court held that while the trial court's actions reflected haste and anxiety for expeditious proceedings rather than actual bias or partiality, it is nevertheless advisable in murder trials to grant adjournments for the absence of senior counsel unless sought merely to protract proceedings, and accused persons generally prefer counsel of their choice. The petition was disposed of with observations that the trial court should avoid undue haste and urgency that might create doubts regarding its impartiality.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of an adjournment by a trial court due to the absence of a senior counsel and the appointment of a defence counsel at state expense constitute sufficient ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Should adjournments be granted in criminal murder trials when the senior counsel is absent?
- Is undue haste by a trial court in conducting proceedings indicative of bias and partiality?
- NIAZ-UD-DIN Versus State2007 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of five kilograms of heroin. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable given the petitioner's claims of false implication, custodial violence, and lack of evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the prosecution witnesses, who had no enmity with the petitioner, provided consistent testimony regarding the recovery of narcotics. The court held that in the absence of any illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the conviction remained unexceptionable. However, regarding the sentence, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment from ten years to six years. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent testimony are generally upheld, the court may mitigate sentencing when the accused is a first-time offender and has been subjected to documented custodial violence during the investigation process.
Questions settled- Can a court reduce a sentence for a narcotics conviction if the accused is a first-time offender and suffered custodial violence?
- Does the absence of enmity between prosecution witnesses and the accused support the reliability of their testimony?
- Is a concurrent finding of guilt by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of illegality?
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.2007 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-06Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR Versus Messrs PAPER INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., NOWSHERA2007 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State2007 SCMR 1896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted intentional murder under section 302(b) or an unintentional murder resulting from a sudden quarrel without premeditation under section 302(c) or section 315 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the occurrence was a sudden affair arising in the heat of passion without premeditation or intention to murder, where the petitioner inflicted a single blow with an ordinary wooden stick. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the conviction under section 302(b), and convicted the appellant under section 302(c) read with section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with compensation. The key principle laid down is that where an unpremeditated fatal blow is dealt during a sudden quarrel without intention to kill, the offense falls under unintentional murder punishable under section 302(c) rather than intentional murder.
Questions settled- Whether a fatal blow inflicted during a sudden quarrel without premeditation constitutes intentional murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 302(c) when the element of premeditation is missing?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conversion of sentence?
- Syed SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH and others Versus ASGHAR HUSSAIN SHAH2007 SCMR 1884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-06Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) and another Versus Messrs R.A. HOSIERY WORKS2007 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD through L.Rs. Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSUF2007 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-24Read full judgment →
- THE STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. Versus BAHADUR SHER2007 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the acquittal warrants interference through the reappraisal of evidence for the safe administration of justice. The Court held that for the safe administration of justice, a complete reappraisal of the entire evidence is necessary to determine if the respondents were correctly and lawfully acquitted. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the issuance of bailable warrants against the respondents, and ordered the appeal to be set down for hearing within the year, establishing the principle that leave to appeal may be granted to examine the correctness of an acquittal based on the reappraisal of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether reappraisal of evidence is necessary to examine the correctness of an acquittal for the safe administration of justice?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the acquittal of respondents?
- What are the consequential orders passed upon the grant of leave to appeal in a criminal acquittal matter?
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB LAHORE and another Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL2007 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA and others Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD2007 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land left by one Pir Bakhsh who died in 1942. The sole son, Allah Wasaya, had obtained a mutation of inheritance in his favour alone, excluding the daughters. Decades later, the daughters' legal heirs filed a suit for declaration claiming their share under Islamic Shariat, which was initially dismissed by the lower courts on the ground that customary law applied. The High Court reversed this finding, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the disputed property was ancestral or self-acquired by the deceased, determining whether custom or Islamic law of inheritance applies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the property was self-acquired by the deceased rather than ancestral, and therefore customary law did not apply. The Court laid down the principle that self-acquired property is governed by the Islamic Law of Succession, and legal heirs cannot be deprived of their shares under Shariat on the basis of alleged customs inapplicable to non-ancestral property.
Questions settled- Whether customary law applies to self-acquired property left by a deceased Muslim proprietor?
- Does the Islamic Law of Succession immediately vest a deceased person's estate in their legal heirs upon death without state intervention?
- Can legal heirs be deprived of their inheritance shares under Shariat where property is proven to be self-acquired rather than ancestral?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the applicability of custom can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction when based on non-reading of evidence?
- Makhdoom JAVED HASHMI Versus State2007 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a criminal petition seeking the suspension of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, who was convicted under sections 124-A, 468, 469, 471, 500, 505(a), and 131/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the sentence of a convict who has already undergone a major portion of his imprisonment, where his appeal has remained pending without hearing for years and statutory sanction requirements for cognizance appear unfulfilled, is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was made out, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it by setting aside the High Court's order declining suspension of sentence. The Court laid down the principle that where a convict has served a substantial portion of the sentence, the appeal remains unheard for an extended period, and arguable points regarding sanction under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exist, the sentence may be suspended in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when the convict has already undergone a major portion of the imprisonment?
- Whether the lack of government sanction under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offense under section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provides a tentative ground for suspending a sentence?
- Does the pendency of an appeal without a hearing for a prolonged period justify the suspension of a convict's sentence?
- EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION), RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS2007 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 13-4-2005, which had set aside the termination of the respondent's services. The respondent, a former Pakistan Army employee dismissed for misconduct and rendered unfit for civil service, had secured a teaching appointment in 1985 by concealing these facts and using a forged discharge certificate. After initiating disciplinary proceedings and terminating his services in 2001, the department faced multiple rounds of litigation. The Supreme Court examined the chronological facts, noting that the respondent's removal order from 2001 remained unchallenged before any competent forum despite being brought on record in earlier proceedings. The core legal question was whether an appointment secured through fraud and misrepresentation could be protected and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applied. The Supreme Court held that appointments secured through fraud and misrepresentation vitiate the process ab initio, making the principle of locus poenitentiae inapplicable. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, while exempting the respondent from returning salary for the period he actually worked.
Questions settled- Whether an appointment secured through fraud and misrepresentation is protected by the principle of locus poenitentiae?
- Does the failure to challenge a termination order in subsequent service appeals render it final?
- Can an employee retain salary for the period duties were performed despite the appointment being declared void ab initio?
- KHURSHID and others Versus UMAR BAKHSH through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-07-12Read full judgment →
- DIRECTORATE-GENERAL CIVIL DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, INTERIOR DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Versus Mian ABDUL SALAM2007 SCMR 1779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-07-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2007 SCMR 1769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer who was later promoted, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had partly allowed his appeal regarding his regular promotion date and supersession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was rightly superseded while his departmental appeal against a major penalty was pending, and from which date he was entitled to pro forma promotion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that superseding the petitioner while his appeal was pending, without deferring his case, was without lawful authority and that no person should be penalized by the inaction or improper actions of public functionaries. The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the Service Tribunal's judgment to direct that the petitioner's case for pro forma promotion be considered from the date of the penalty order rather than the date the Tribunal decided his appeal. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries must act fairly and defer a civil servant's promotion case when an appeal against a penalty is pending adjudication, ensuring employees are not prejudiced by departmental delays.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be superseded while an appeal against a major penalty is pending adjudication before a service tribunal?
- Should public functionaries defer the promotion case of an employee awaiting the outcome of a pending departmental or tribunal appeal?
- Can an employee be penalized by the inaction or improper consideration of public functionaries?
- From which date is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion when their supersession is found to be contrary to law?
- AHMAD YAR Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHINIOT, DISTRICT JHANG2007 SCMR 1768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE2007 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- WAJID SAEED KHAN Versus ABDUL QADOOS KHAN SWATI2007 SCMR 1759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a banking recovery suit where the judgment-debtor's property was auctioned during execution proceedings following a dispute over the fulfillment of a State Bank of Pakistan incentive scheme. The executing court dismissed the judgment-debtor's objection petition without conducting a proper investigation or judicial application of mind. On appeal, the Peshawar High Court set aside the executing court's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The auction purchaser challenged the remand order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the perfunctory order of the executing court and remanding the case for proper investigation, reaffirming the settled principle that the Supreme Court generally does not interfere with remand orders, and that judicial officers and public functionaries must decide matters only after a proper judicial application of mind. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court interferes with remand orders passed by the High Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Is a judicial officer bound to decide objections and applications after a proper judicial application of mind?
- What is the extent of the State Bank of Pakistan's power to control advances by banking companies under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962?
- HABIBULLAH and another Versus State2007 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction involving two petitioners, Habibullah and Umar Hayat, who were convicted for murder. The core legal issue concerns the reliability of eye-witness testimony in the presence of admitted blood enmity and the evidentiary value of forensic evidence, specifically crime empties recovered from the crime scene. The Supreme Court observed that because of the admitted enmity between the parties, the testimony of eye-witnesses required independent corroboration. The Court scrutinized the recovery of five crime empties, noting that the Investigating Officer admitted to receiving official directives (Robkars) from a D.S.P. to procure crime empties days after the occurrence, casting significant doubt on the timing and authenticity of the recovery. Consequently, the Court held that the forensic evidence could not serve as reliable corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case doubtful, the Court allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in cases of admitted enmity, eye-witness testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence, and evidence obtained through suspicious investigative procedures lacks credibility.
Questions settled- Can eye-witness testimony be relied upon without corroboration in cases of admitted blood enmity?
- Does the timing of the recovery of crime empties, when inconsistent with police records, render forensic evidence unreliable?
- What is the evidentiary value of crime empties when the investigating officer admits to receiving instructions to procure them after the occurrence?
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus Dr. RIFFAT AYSHA ANIS2007 SCMR 1748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-04Read full judgment →