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.

• MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another Versus Mst. FARIDA BIBI2007 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN Versus SHAMSHER2007 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-06-05
  inheritance disputeIslamic law of successionuterine siblingsresiduary heirsmisappreciation of evidencepedigree-table
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding an inheritance dispute over the property of the deceased, Haji Ahmad. The core legal question concerned the correct distribution of the deceased's estate among his heirs, specifically whether the uterine relationship of certain collaterals granted them a preferential share in the residue of the estate. The Supreme Court examined the pedigree-table and the rules of succession under Islamic law. The Court held that because the mother of the deceased had married his uncle, the children of that union were uterine siblings to the deceased, placing them in a nearer degree of relationship compared to other collaterals. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the residue of the estate must pass to these uterine siblings. The judgment emphasizes that ignoring established facts regarding familial relationships constitutes a serious misappreciation of both fact and law, necessitating appellate intervention to correct the distribution of inheritance shares.

  Questions settled

  • Does a uterine relationship with the deceased create a preferential claim to the residue of an estate compared to other collaterals?
  • Is the failure of lower courts to consider established familial relationships in an inheritance dispute considered a misappreciation of law and fact?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATR2007 SCMR 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-22
  narcotics controlsearch and seizurepublic placesearch warrantdirectory provisionscriminal appealpossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal against a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 13 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the raid conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.-I.) in a public street violated Section 21 of the Act, which restricts search and seizure powers to officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector regarding buildings or premises. The Supreme Court held that Section 21 is inapplicable to searches conducted in public places or thoroughfares, as its provisions specifically govern the entry and search of buildings, places, or premises. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the requirement for search warrants is directory rather than mandatory, particularly when immediate action is necessary to prevent the concealment of evidence or the escape of the accused. Consequently, the Court found no procedural illegality in the raid, upheld the conviction, and dismissed the petition, noting that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimony and positive chemical examination reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 apply to searches conducted in public streets or thoroughfares?
  • Is the requirement to obtain a search warrant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 mandatory or directory?
  • Can an Assistant Sub-Inspector conduct a search and seizure of narcotics in a public place without a warrant?
  Read full judgment →
• MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Versus SHAMSUL AULIA2007 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ ROSHAN2007 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-04
  Family lawCompromise agreementExecution of compromiseAdmission in plaintWithdrawn suitMaintenanceDowryDowerWrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the execution of a compromise agreement in a family dispute involving claims for dowry, maintenance, and dower. The petitioner's initial suits were dismissed based on a compromise, which she later alleged was not implemented. She sought execution of the compromise, but the High Court, upholding lower court decisions, found that the matter involved disputed questions of fact requiring a civil suit. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the compromise dated 18-11-2003 had been implemented, relying on an admission made by the petitioner herself in paragraph 3 of a subsequently filed (and withdrawn) civil suit. The Court also noted the respondent's offer to pay maintenance, which the petitioner accepted subject to the return of dowry. The key principle established is that an admission in a withdrawn plaint can be considered to determine the implementation of a compromise agreement, obviating the need for further factual inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can an admission made in a withdrawn plaint be considered to determine the implementation of a compromise agreement?
  • Is a formal decree-sheet always necessary for the execution of a compromise agreement in family matters?
  • Does an admission regarding the implementation of a compromise agreement preclude the need for recording evidence on disputed facts?
  • Can a High Court's decision be maintained on the ground of an admission made in a previously filed and withdrawn suit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another Versus DARUL ULOOM GHAUSIA HANFIA MOHALLA DHABWALA2007 SCMR 1510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-12
  adverse possessionLimitation Actevacuee propertyproprietary titlepossessory titlesuit for possessionconstructive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for possession based on title, originally instituted by an allottee of evacuee property in 1981 and subsequently pursued by the respondent transferee. The defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession spanning over 60 years. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The High Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, finding that the revenue entries failed to establish adverse possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that Article 142 applies to suits based on possessory title, whereas Article 144 governs suits based on proprietary title. The Court clarified that possession for any duration does not become adverse unless open, hostile, and notorious to the owner's knowledge, with acts of ouster clearly pleaded. Furthermore, adverse possession cannot run against evacuee property while vested in the Custodian. Under Article 136, a vendee's suit is not barred unless the vendor was ousted by adverse possession.

  Questions settled

  • Which Limitation Act provision applies to a suit for possession based on proprietary title versus possessory title?
  • What specific elements must be pleaded and proven to establish a claim of adverse possession?
  • Can adverse possession be claimed against evacuee property while it remains vested in the Custodian?
  • How is the expression 'out of possession' interpreted under Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHID HUSSAIN alias ZAHIDA Versus State2007 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-10
  jail petitionanti-terrorismidentification paradered bookinjured witnessmurdersubsequent statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder and other offences under sections 302/324/353/186/133/34 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the registration of the case on the basis of a subsequent statement recorded in the hospital vitiated the trial, whether the identification of the petitioner via photographs in the red book and newspapers was doubtful, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without detailed point-wise discussion. The Supreme Court held that the prompt FIR based on the statement of injured police officials was valid, the natural presence of the eyewitnesses established the occurrence, and minor defects in the High Court judgment caused no prejudice on merits as the material evidence was properly discussed. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of a second statement of an injured complainant in a hospital for FIR registration render the trial illegal?
  • Can the identification of a proclaimed offender by eyewitnesses based on photographs in the red book and newspapers be deemed reliable?
  • Does a lack of point-wise discussion of evidence by the High Court automatically vitiate an appellate judgment when material evidence is otherwise properly evaluated?
  • Is the direct and natural evidence of injured police witnesses sufficient to maintain a conviction without an identification parade?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR Versus State2007 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-26
  qatl-i-amdta'zirqisas and diyatwaiver of qisasgrave and sudden provocationhonour killingpartial compromisequantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the respondents for qatl-i-amd under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reducing their sentence to the period already undergone. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court could sentence the accused under section 302(c) rather than section 302(b) when only the parents of the deceased had waived qisas while the husband had not, and whether the respondents acted under grave and sudden provocation to justify a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court held that since the conviction was under ta'zir rather than qisas, a partial waiver by some heirs does not permit sentencing under section 302(c); the offence required sentencing under section 302(b). Furthermore, the Court held that a marriage of choice a year prior to the occurrence does not constitute grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, converting the conviction to section 302(b) and sentencing the respondents to imprisonment for life, while setting aside the High Court's reduction of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether having held the respondents to be guilty of Qatl-i-Amd and in absence of requisite proof of Qisas, could the trial court sentence them under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the ground that parents of the deceased had granted waiver while her husband had not?
  • Whether an offence of Ta'zir under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be compounded partially by some legal heirs without the consent of all heirs?
  • Whether a marriage of choice contracted against the wishes of family members constitutes grave and sudden provocation to warrant a lesser punishment for murder?
  • Does a mere allegation of moral laxity without unimpeachable evidence constitute grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• MURAD ALI Versus State2007 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-03
  criminal petition for leave to appealjudicial confessionretracted confessionfirearm expert reportmotivemurdersurrender of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life handed down by the Sessions Judge. The prosecution case was built on an eyewitness account, an alleged motive of old enmity, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon of offense, a judicial confession, and a positive forensic report matching the crime empty with the surrendered pistol. The core legal question centered on whether the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and true, and whether delays in forensic dispatch and surrender circumstances vitiated the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the voluntarism and truth of the confessional statement were sound, that minor delays in sending items to the forensic expert were inconsequential without proof of tampering, and that the retracted confession was sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon for conviction if found to be voluntary and true?
  • Does a delay in dispatching crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory automatically render the firearm expert report untrustworthy?
  • Whether the surrender of an accused and subsequent production of a weapon preclude a voluntary judicial confession a few days later?
  • Does a compromise between the legal heirs and a hostile witness vitiate the prosecution's case regarding the motive of old enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus MAULA BAKHSH2007 SCMR 1446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-11
  inheritance mutationlaw of limitationdiscretionary reliefdeclaratory suitconcurrent findingsclean hands doctrinecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that reversed concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts, which had dismissed a suit challenging a 1942 inheritance mutation. The respondents, claiming to be heirs of Mst. Khairan, sought to invalidate a mutation sanctioned 46 years prior. The core legal questions were whether the law of limitation applies to inheritance disputes and whether the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on a misrepresentation of the pedigree. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its sweeping assertion that limitation does not apply to inheritance cases, noting that such claims must be brought with due diligence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the relief of declaration is discretionary, and plaintiffs who misrepresent material facts or fail to come with clean hands are disentitled to such relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the dismissal of the suit, and reaffirmed that statutes of limitation serve as essential instruments of peace and repose in litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the law of limitation apply to suits challenging inheritance mutations?
  • Can a court grant discretionary relief to a plaintiff who has misrepresented material facts in their pleadings?
  • Is a High Court justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance and pedigree?
  • Does the absence of specific pleadings regarding fraud or concealment preclude the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF EXECUTIVE, AYUB MEDICAL INSTITUTION, ABBOTTABAD and another Versus Dr. WAQAR-UR-REHMAN QURESHI2007 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-26
  repatriationprobation periodex-pakistan leaveprinciples of natural justicemedical institutionservice lawsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed, declaring a notification invalid and upholding his status. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Professor at Ayub Medical College on probation, subsequently granted Ex-Pakistan leave to take up an assignment in Saudi Arabia, and later unilaterally repatriated to his parent department by the Chief Executive of Ayub Medical Institution. The core legal question was whether the respondent was an employee of Ayub Medical College and whether his unilateral repatriation during leave and probation without an inquiry or opportunity of hearing was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on valid reasons, finding that the respondent had completed his probation period, was granted leave and NOC by the competent authority, and could not be unilaterally repatriated without observing the principles of natural justice and service rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee on probation can be unilaterally repatriated to his parent department without an inquiry?
  • Does a medical institution have the authority to repatriate an employee during his approved Ex-Pakistan leave?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice apply before terminating or altering the service status of an employee on probation?
  Read full judgment →
• RIZWAN IQBAL Versus State2007 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-15
  pre-arrest bailforgeryterritorial jurisdictionfurther inquirycriminal procedureFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and fraud. The petitioner and his mother were accused under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding alleged forged agreements to sell property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the seven-year delay in lodging the FIR, the jurisdictional issues regarding the police station where the FIR was registered, and the conflicting evidence regarding the handwriting expert reports. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry, noting the significant delay in registration and the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the police station involved. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a case requires further inquiry due to procedural irregularities and evidentiary doubts, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the lack of territorial jurisdiction of a police station over the disputed property be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the case against the accused requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• ALL PAKISTAN SEAMEN'S WORKERS UNION through General Secretary Versus PAKISTAN SEAMEN'S UNION through Secretary2007 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-11-13
  Industry-wise Trade UnionNational Industrial Relations Commissiondelegation of powersregistration of trade unionstatutory interpretationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Sindh High Court order that set aside the registration of the petitioner-Union as an Industry-wise Trade Union by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal question was whether the Chairman of the NIRC could delegate the function of enquiring into and registering an Industry-wise Trade Union to a Deputy Registrar, rather than performing the function personally or through a constituted Bench of the Commission. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the statutory powers vested in the Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically regarding the registration of Industry-wise Trade Unions, are non-delegable to subordinate officers like the Deputy Registrar. The Court emphasized that the Ordinance requires such functions to be exercised by the Chairman or a Bench of the Commission. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Chairman's approval of a report by a Deputy Registrar, without independent application of mind or proper constitution of a Bench, was legally flawed and lacked jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission delegate the function of registering an Industry-wise Trade Union to a Deputy Registrar?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 permit the registration of an Industry-wise Trade Union without the Chairman or a Bench of the Commission applying their mind to the application?
  • Is the function of registering an Industry-wise Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, distinct from the registration powers of a Registrar of Trade Unions under Section 8 of the same Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR Versus State2007 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-13
  kidnapping for ransomjail petitionidentification testransom notelife imprisonmentforfeiture of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition was directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with forfeiture of properties under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case was that the petitioner, along with co-accused, abducted a doctor at gunpoint, held him in captivity in a forest, and released him after receiving a ransom of Rs. 7,00,000. The petitioner pleaded false implication. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the evidence, noting that the abductee unequivocally identified the petitioner and testified to the abduction and ransom payment, which was corroborated by other witnesses and a written ransom note. The Court held that the ingredients of Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were fully attracted and that there was no lacuna in the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an abductee, corroborated by eye-witnesses and documentary evidence of a ransom note, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the release of an abductee only after the payment of a specified sum satisfy the statutory ingredients of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• FAUJI FOUNDATION (HEADQUARTERS) through Manager Administration Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL2007 SCMR 1346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-13Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI Versus State2007 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-04
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, which resulted in a life imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—specifically last-seen evidence and motive—was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which suffered from significant infirmities and lacked the necessary characteristics to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the presence of unexplained articles and injuries on the deceased suggested a mysterious occurrence, yet the High Court erroneously drew inferences against the accused rather than in his favor. Emphasizing the fundamental principle of criminal justice that an accused is entitled to the benefit of any doubt arising in the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
  • Does the presence of unexplained physical evidence at a crime scene create a reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
  • Should inferences in a criminal trial be drawn in favor of the prosecution or the accused when evidence is ambiguous?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD BAWANI Versus DEPUTY CONTROLLER BUILDING ZONE-B2007 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. SURRIYA PARVEEN Versus MUZAFFAR ISLAM MALIK2007 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. LALAN BIBI and others Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN2007 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-22Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI2007 SCMR 1186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-09-12Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR Versus KALAY KHAN2007 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-10Read full judgment →
• ZAHID HUSSAIN and others Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE2007 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others Versus ARSHAD IQBAL2007 SCMR 1179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-19Read full judgment →
• ZAHER Versus State2007 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN and others Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2007 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-28Read full judgment →
• BALOCHISTAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. Versus ABDUL HAMEED2007 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  labour lawwrongful terminationreinstatementback-benefitscompensation in lieu of reinstatementindustrial relationsmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed by Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd. challenging a High Court judgment that awarded workers compensation in lieu of reinstatement alongside back-benefits following their dismissal. The core legal question was whether, under Section 46(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, a court can simultaneously grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-benefits for the period a worker remained out of service. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting both reliefs. The Court clarified that Section 46(5) provides for compensation in lieu of reinstatement as an alternative remedy when harmonious employment is no longer possible. The ratio established is that these two reliefs are mutually exclusive; if a worker is compensated in lieu of reinstatement, they are not entitled to back-benefits for the period they remained unemployed. Consequently, the Court set aside the modification of the appellate order that had granted both, affirming that the statutory scheme does not permit the simultaneous award of such compensation and back-benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court simultaneously award compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-benefits under Section 46(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Does the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, preclude a claim for back-benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS Versus Mst. SIDDIQAN AFZAL2007 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-08
  customs seizureconfiscation of goodsshow-cause noticerepeal and savingsstatutory interpretationprocedural delayCustoms Act 1969
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside the confiscation of gold seized in 1963. The gold was originally seized under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, but adjudication proceedings, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, did not occur until 1978, long after the Customs Act, 1969, had come into force. The core legal question was whether the procedural requirements of the Customs Act, 1969, specifically the time limits for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 168(2), applied to goods seized under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of the saving clause in Section 221 of the Customs Act, 1969, actions taken under the repealed enactment are deemed to have been taken under the new Act. Consequently, the procedural mandates of the 1969 Act, including the requirement to issue a show-cause notice within two months of seizure, became applicable. As the notice was issued years after the statutory deadline, the confiscation was held to be legally unsustainable, affirming the High Court's decision to return the seized goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does the saving clause in Section 221 of the Customs Act, 1969, make the procedural requirements of the 1969 Act applicable to goods seized under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878?
  • Is the issuance of a show-cause notice within two months of seizure, as mandated by Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, a mandatory requirement for the validity of confiscation proceedings?
  • Can confiscation proceedings initiated years after the seizure of goods be sustained if they fail to comply with the statutory time limits for notice prescribed by the governing legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLIED BANK LIMITED through Attorney and others Versus Syed NASIR ABBAS NAQVI2007 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-12Read full judgment →
• HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance2007 SCMR 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-09
  sales tax exemptioncustoms dutystatutory interpretationtax concessionburden of proofimport valuationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Sindh High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the denial of sales tax exemption on an imported motorboat. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification S.R.O.212(I)/91, asserting the boat could not be manufactured locally. The core legal question was whether the appellant satisfied the conditions for exemption before the notification was withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove the boat could not be manufactured locally, as the initial 'no objection' was based on conjecture rather than verified facts. Consequently, because the exemption requirements were not fulfilled while the notification remained in force, the appellant became liable for sales tax upon the notification's withdrawal. The Court affirmed that tax exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer, and the burden rests on the claimant to demonstrate full compliance with all statutory conditions before the withdrawal of such benefits. The Court also declined to address the valuation dispute, noting it was not argued before the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving entitlement to a tax exemption lie with the taxpayer?
  • Can a claim for tax exemption be sustained if the statutory conditions are not met before the withdrawal of the exemption notification?
  • Should tax exemptions be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer?
  • Is a valuation dispute raised for the first time in appeal maintainable if it was not argued before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ANWAR Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2007 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-03Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ and others Versus MUHAMMAD ALI through Legal Representative2007 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others Versus ABBAS ALI SHAH2007 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-23
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhadservice of noticepresumption of servicerebuttal of presumptionregistered postburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the central legal question concerns the validity of the service of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' under the Pre-emption Act. The respondent-plaintiff claimed to have performed the necessary demands, including sending notice of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' via registered post, which was returned with an endorsement of refusal. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, finding the service unproven. The High Court subsequently restored the decree. The Supreme Court held that while a presumption of service arises under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 when a notice is sent by registered post and returned with a 'refusal' endorsement, this presumption is rebuttable. Once the addressee appears in court and denies service on oath, the initial presumption is rebutted, and the burden shifts back to the sender to prove service, typically by producing the postman. As the respondent failed to produce the postman to verify the refusal, the service was not established, and the appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a presumption of service arise when a notice sent by registered post is returned with an endorsement of refusal?
  • Can the presumption of service arising from a 'refusal' endorsement on a registered letter be rebutted by the addressee's denial on oath?
  • Is the production of the postman necessary to prove service of a notice when the addressee denies receipt on oath?
  • Does the mere sending of a notice under the Pre-emption Act constitute sufficient compliance if the addressee denies service?
  Read full judgment →
• INTERNATIONAL MULTI LEASING CORPORATION and others Versus CAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LTD.2007 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-01-11Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others Versus ATTOCK PETROLEUM LTD. ISLAMABAD2007 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN and others Versus JAMAL DIN2007 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI2007 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-01Read full judgment →
• RAFAQAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD FARID2007 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-14Read full judgment →
• QALANDAR and 4 others Versus MUHAMMAD RAFI-UD-DIN2007 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-10-03Read full judgment →
• RAFAQAT ALI and others Versus Mst. JAMSHED BIBI2007 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN and another Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Collector, Mardan2007 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-12-17Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MURTAZA Versus ABDUL SALAM SHAH2007 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN Versus NADEEM AKHTAR2007 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-08
  election petitiondisqualification of candidateconcealment of assetsnotoriety of disqualificationrunner-up candidatefresh electionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the Election Tribunal's order which had declared the petitioner as the returned candidate for the office of Nazim after disqualifying the deceased returned candidate for concealment of assets. The core legal question is whether a candidate securing the second highest number of votes can be declared elected in place of a disqualified returned candidate when the disqualification was not established to be notorious at the time of polling. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that in the absence of positive evidence proving the notoriety of the disqualification at the time of polling, the votes cast for the disqualified candidate cannot be treated as thrown away, and the runner-up cannot be declared returned; rather, a fresh election must be held. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of throwing away votes requires strict proof of notoriety of the returned candidate's disqualification through positive evidence on record, failing which a fresh election is the proper remedy upon setting aside the election as a whole.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate securing the second highest number of votes be declared successful upon the disqualification of the returned candidate without proof of notoriety?
  • What standard of proof is required to establish the notoriety of a candidate's disqualification at the time of polling?
  • Does the concealment of assets by a returned candidate automatically render their disqualification notorious to the electorate?
  Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE Versus Messrs HAQ COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. BUREWALA2007 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-12
  Sales taxSearch and seizureSearch warrantTax evasionProcedural safeguardsStatutory interpretationConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declared a raid and seizure of records by Sales Tax authorities at the respondents' business premises to be illegal and void. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax possessed the authority to conduct a search and seize documents without a warrant, and whether the statutory procedural requirements governing such actions were satisfied. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards stipulated in the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Specifically, the Court established that the power to conduct a search without a warrant under Section 40-A is not unbridled; it requires the officer to record in writing the specific grounds for their belief that evidence might be removed before a warrant could be obtained. Because the authorities failed to record these reasons or follow the prescribed procedure, the search was declared illegal, void, and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can sales tax authorities conduct a search of business premises without a warrant under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for an officer to conduct a search without a warrant under Section 40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, grant tax authorities unbridled power to search premises and seize records?
  • Is a search and seizure conducted by tax authorities illegal if the officer fails to record the grounds for their belief in writing?
  Read full judgment →
• KHYBER KHAN and others Versus Haji Malik AMANULLAH KHAN2007 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-26
  pre-emptionTalb-e-Muwathibatplaint requirementssuperior right of pre-emptionland salecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the appellants regarding the sale of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the respondent possessed a superior right of pre-emption due to land contiguity and the performance of required Talbs. The appellate court reversed this finding, ruling against the respondent on the issue of contiguity but upholding the findings on Talbs. The High Court subsequently restored the trial court's decree in its revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the respondent's suit was liable to be dismissed because the plaint failed to specify the time, date, and place of the Talb-e-Muwathibat, relying on the precedent established in Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had failed to mention the time and place of the Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint. Applying the rule that the omission of any of these three particulars is fatal to a pre-emption suit, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the omission to mention the time, date, and place of making Talb-e-Muwathibat in a plaint fatal to a suit of pre-emption?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed solely on the basis of failing to plead the specific time and place of Talb-e-Muwathibat?
  Read full judgment →
• KHUDA BAKHSH and others Versus MUZAFFAR through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-07Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others Versus SHAMIM AHMAD KHAN through L.Rs.2007 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-02-28
  pre-emptionprinciple of sinkerdivisibility of saletenant's rightMartial Law Regulation 115remandburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court granting a decree for possession of land through pre-emption. The core legal questions concerned whether the principle of sinker applies to a tenant's right of pre-emption under Martial Law Regulation 115, and whether the principle of sinker requires specific pleading and the framing of an issue regarding the divisibility of a sale. The Supreme Court held that the principle of sinker is a question of fact that must be pleaded by the pre-emptor. Crucially, the Court determined that when the issue of sinker is raised, the trial court must frame a specific issue regarding the divisibility of the sale, placing the burden of proof on the defendant-vendee. Because the trial court failed to frame such an issue, the vendees were denied the opportunity to prove the sale was divisible, which could have averted the application of the sinker principle. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to allow parties to lead evidence on the divisibility of the sale.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of sinker apply to a tenant's right of pre-emption under Martial Law Regulation 115?
  • Must the plea of sinker be raised in the pleadings by the pre-emptor?
  • Is the divisibility of a sale a question of fact that requires a specific issue to be framed by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES III, KARACHI and others Versus Messrs PAKISTAN ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.2007 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-27
  income tax appealconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionlimitation periodrectification of orderfinality of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which converted a time-barred income tax appeal into a constitutional petition and allowed it, setting aside concurrent orders of the tax authorities. The core legal questions involved whether an income tax appeal filed long after the dismissal of a second appeal was maintainable, and whether the High Court erred in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to bypass statutory limitation periods and finality of orders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court improperly exercised writ jurisdiction by converting a time-barred appeal into a constitutional petition after considerable delay, ignoring the fact that the original assessment order had attained finality. The Court laid down the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the bar of limitation and revive matters that have already achieved finality through the prescribed statutory hierarchy without any apparent error on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an income tax appeal filed against an original assessment order after a considerable delay is time-barred and maintainable?
  • Whether the High Court can lawfully convert a time-barred income tax appeal into a constitutional petition?
  • Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge an order that has already attained finality through the statutory hierarchy?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through President President's Secretariat, Islamabad2007 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus State2006 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-31
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionLalkaracriminal leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether an accused person attributed with raising a Lalkara in furtherance of a murder, with a prior motive stemming from the deceased being a witness in another case, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that where the petitioner is specifically nominated and attributed a concrete role with a clear motive, the Lalkara cannot be deemed proverbial at the bail stage, and consequently refused leave to appeal. The Court laid down the principle that the assessment of evidence at the bail stage is purely tentative and that specific roles coupled with established motive disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail, resulting in the recall of the interim bail earlier granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused attributed with raising a Lalkara is entitled to post-arrest bail when a clear motive and specific role are established?
  • Does the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage affect the merits of the case before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State2006 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-09-26
  death sentencemitigating circumstancemotiveself-defenceocular evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the unproved motive or the abandoned plea of self-defence constituted a mitigating circumstance for a lesser punishment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable ocular evidence, the inadequacy, weakness, or failure to prove a motive—or a motive shrouded in mystery—does not serve as a mitigating circumstance. Furthermore, a plea of self-defence mentioned during investigation but abandoned during the section 342 statement under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be considered. The key principle laid down is that unproved motive and abandoned pleas of self-defence do not mitigate the sentence when direct ocular evidence firmly establishes guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inadequacy or failure to prove a motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for a lesser punishment when ocular evidence is unimpeachable?
  • Does failing to press a plea of self-defence in a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to abandoning that plea?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused receives no injuries during the alleged scuffle?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus State2006 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  jail petitiongrave and sudden provocationfamily honourqatal-e-amadcapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 302(b) read with section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was tried by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the murders of his mother, sister, and two brothers, and was sentenced to death on four counts alongside other punishments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's act of killing four family members upon suspecting his sister's illicit relations constituted grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate the sentence to lesser punishment under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that mere suspicion of a female's illicit liaison and grievances regarding family honour do not amount to grave and sudden provocation, and brutality directed at multiple family members disentitles the accused to leniency. The key principle laid down is that suspicion of illicit relations cannot excuse murder or serve as a mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment under criminal law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere suspicion of a female family member's illicit relations constitutes grave and sudden provocation to reduce a murder sentence?
  • Can the murder of multiple family members under the guise of family honour serve as a mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment?
  • Does a plea of grave and sudden provocation require evidentiary support beyond the accused's statement to alter the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State2006 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-24
  ocular evidencebenefit of doubtmurder convictionleave to appealappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular evidence was reliable despite alleged contradictions with medical evidence, whether the petitioner was entitled to the same benefit of doubt as his acquitted co-accused, and whether the prosecution's case suffered from material discrepancies requiring independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular testimony of the complainant and the eyewitness was consistent, trustworthy, and established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused, who was unarmed, thereby justifying the difference in treatment. The Court further noted that the High Court had already exercised leniency by reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is credible and corroborated by circumstances, and the roles of co-accused are distinct, the acquittal of one does not automatically entitle the other to the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle the main accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is ocular testimony considered reliable when it is consistent and corroborated by the circumstances of the case?
  • Can a court distinguish between the roles of co-accused when determining the applicability of the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR AHMAD Versus State2006 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-07-15
  narcotics possessionrecovery witnesschemical analysisleave to appealcriminal convictionsample sufficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1120 grams of heroin. The petitioner contended that the prosecution's case was flawed due to the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery and the insufficiency of the chemical analysis, as only one gram of the substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court addressed whether the lack of independent witnesses and the sampling method invalidated the conviction. The Court held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is specifically excluded by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, rendering the absence of public witnesses non-fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a single gram sample is sufficient for chemical analysis when the narcotics are not contained in separate packets. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contentions, declined leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to a narcotics recovery invalidate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to recoveries made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a one-gram sample of heroin sufficient for chemical analysis in a narcotics possession case?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR HUSSAIN Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHALWAL2006 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State2006 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-06
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonymedical evidencedeath sentencetypographical errorforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentence of the appellant for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony, the impact of alleged discrepancies between medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the nature of the projectiles used, and the effect of the prosecution's failure to send crime scene empties for forensic analysis. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting the prompt registration of the F.I.R., the appellant's apprehension at the scene with the incriminating weapon, and the corroborative medical evidence. The Court clarified that the use of the word "pellets" in the medical report was a typographical error for "bullets," thus resolving the alleged inconsistency. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that in the presence of confidence-inspiring ocular testimony and other incriminating circumstances, the failure to send empties for forensic analysis does not vitiate the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does a typographical error in a medical report regarding the type of projectile used invalidate the ocular account of a murder?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained if the prosecution fails to send crime scene empties to a forensic expert?
  • Is the apprehension of an accused at the crime scene with an incriminating weapon sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed NAZAR ABBAS JAFFRI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2006 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-13
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantpolitical interferencetrichotomy of powersservice tribunalillegal appointmentsconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a civil servant for allegedly making unauthorized appointments under political pressure. The petitioner, having been penalized with a reduction in pay scale, challenged the order before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which modified the penalty. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner could be penalized for actions taken under political duress and whether such interference was lawful. The Court held that the petitioner had acted in accordance with the law by resisting illegal political pressure, noting that public representatives lack the authority to dictate administrative appointments. The Court set aside the penalty, emphasizing that the doctrine of the trichotomy of powers must be strictly observed. It reiterated that all state organs are bound by Supreme Court judgments under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that civil servants must perform their duties within the parameters of the law, independent of political interference, and that actions taken in violation of these principles, or under the dictation of unauthorized public representatives, are invalid and contrary to the constitutional scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be penalized for refusing to comply with illegal appointment orders issued under political pressure?
  • Are judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan binding on all organs of the State under the Constitution?
  • Do public representatives like MNAs or MPAs possess the legal authority to direct the appointment of government employees?
  • Does the doctrine of the trichotomy of powers prohibit the executive from interfering in the administrative functions of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN QAZI, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI Versus AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2006 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-24
  misconductgovernment servantdisciplinary proceedingsconduct rulesproperty purchaselimitationservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld a disciplinary penalty imposed on the petitioner, an Income Tax Officer. The petitioner was penalized with the withholding of one annual increment for three years for misconduct, specifically failing to obtain prior permission for the purchase of a plot of land, despite having received a house building advance. The core legal question was whether the sanctioning of a house building loan by the authorities constitutes implied permission for the purchase of property under the relevant conduct rules. The Supreme Court held that the mere sanction of a loan does not equate to the mandatory permission required for property transactions under Rule 11 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed regulatory procedure. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed on the additional ground of being time-barred, as no plausible explanation for the delay was provided, and the case lacked a question of general public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sanctioning of a house building advance by the government constitute implied permission for the purchase of property under the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964?
  • Is a government servant required to obtain separate, explicit permission for the purchase of immovable property even if a house building loan has been sanctioned?
  • Does the failure to obtain prior permission for the purchase of immovable property constitute misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIF Versus State2006 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealsodomymurderocular testimonyforensic evidenceacquittal reversalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a jail petition challenging a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had modified the trial court's decision regarding the conviction and sentencing of the accused for the murder and sodomy of a twelve-year-old boy. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical and forensic evidence, and the validity of the Federal Shariat Court's reversal of an acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the Federal Shariat Court, finding that the prosecution had established its case through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence confirming sodomy, and forensic reports linking the accused to the crime via blood-stained weapon recovery. The Court held that the initial acquittal of one of the appellants by the trial court was perverse and based on a misreading of evidence. The principle affirmed is that where ocular testimony is corroborated by medical and forensic findings, it constitutes sufficient proof of guilt, justifying the reversal of an arbitrary or capricious acquittal by a lower court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reverse an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, and based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Is ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder and sodomy?
  • Does the failure of an accused to examine themselves on oath under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the court's assessment of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• GHUFRALA TAUSEEF Versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LAHORE2006 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-02Read full judgment →
• ASHIR WASIM BABAR Versus State2006 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-08-26
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestattempted murdermala fidescriminal petitionevading arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under sections 324, 337-A(2), and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing shots and inflicting pistol-butt injuries on the complainant's head. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail based on alleged mala fides and political victimization, and whether prima facie evidence connected him to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence and the F.I.R. established a prima facie case against the petitioner, and that his attempt to evade arrest while openly contesting local government elections did not entitle him to pre-arrest bail, particularly given the unrecovered weapon of offense. The key principle laid down is that an accused facing serious non-bailable charges supported by prima facie and medical evidence, who actively evades arrest while utilizing influence during election processes, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person who fails to substantiate allegations of mala fides is entitled to pre-arrest bail when prima facie and medical evidence connects him to the crime?
  • Does the failure of local authorities to arrest an accused person involved in a heinous offense during an election process justify granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is recovery of the weapon of offense a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF and another Versus State2006 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-17
  sodomyunnatural offencesole testimonymedical evidenceleave to appealcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and maintained their conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy, while extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the sole testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt narration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for sodomy in the absence of independent corroboration or proof of prior animosity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through credible and consistent testimony supported by medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that the uncorroborated sole testimony of a victim of sodomy, when found truthful and reliable and supported by prompt complaint and medical evidence, is legally sufficient to form the basis of a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the sole testimony of a victim in a sodomy case?
  • What is the effect of the accused failing to establish alleged animosity for false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another Versus State2006 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  jail petitioncondonation of delaycapital punishmentconcurrent findingsinjured eyewitnessmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and maintained their conviction and sentence for multiple murders. The core legal question involved the assessment of concurrent findings of guilt based on ocular testimony in a brutal multiple homicide case, and whether a delay of 640 days in filing the jail petition could be condoned where the death penalty was awarded. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time with no plausible explanation, and on merits, the concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by irrefutable ocular accounts of injured eyewitnesses and a proven motive, disclosing no legal infirmity. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of guilt based on trustworthy testimony of injured witnesses, corroborated by motive and free from material irregularities, will not be interfered with, and extreme delay without justification bars relief even in capital punishment cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a jail petition barred by an unexplained delay of 640 days can be entertained merely because the petitioners were awarded the death penalty?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court when supported by injured eyewitnesses?
  • Whether the testimony of injured eyewitnesses provides sufficient ocular account to sustain a conviction for multiple murders?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State2006 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-19
  leave to appealmurder convictionocular evidencemedical evidenceshifting defensefirearm injurycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Iqbal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, Babar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, motivated by a prior quarrel over a buffalo, shot the deceased. The petitioner challenged the conviction, offering conflicting defense versions, including a claim of accidental firing during a confrontation with a co-accused. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and eyewitnesses, which was corroborated by the medical evidence regarding the firearm injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that the petitioner's shifting defense theories lacked credibility and failed to address the motive established by the prosecution. Finding no illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the lower court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that the prosecution had fully established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a conviction where the ocular evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does a shifting and inconsistent defense version weaken the credibility of an accused in a murder trial?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained when the prosecution establishes motive and ocular testimony despite the accused's claim of accidental firing?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED Versus State2006 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-08
  criminal appealgrave and sudden provocationocular evidencemurder convictionSection 302(b) PPCappreciation of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s defense of grave and sudden provocation—alleging he killed the deceased upon discovering him in a compromising position with his sister—was credible, and whether the prosecution's ocular evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal or factual error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the defense version was implausible, particularly as the woman's husband did not corroborate the claim and the circumstances contradicted the petitioner's narrative. The Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is consistent, natural, and supported by medical evidence, and the defense version is inherently improbable, the conviction is sustainable. Additionally, the Court noted that the failure of an accused to testify on oath to support a plea of grave and sudden provocation significantly weakens the credibility of that defense.

  Questions settled

  • Is a plea of grave and sudden provocation credible when the husband of the woman involved in the alleged incident does not corroborate the defense version?
  • Does the failure of an accused to testify on oath to support a plea of grave and sudden provocation weaken the defense?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when the defense version is found to be inherently improbable and unsupported by surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• I.-G. (PRISONS) N.-W.F.P. PESHAWAR and others Versus MUHAMMAD ISRAIL, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT JAIL, HARIPUR2006 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-06-19
  prison escapeservice lawdisciplinary proceedingssupervisory negligencecompulsory retirementservice tribunalcomplete justicejail administration
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from an appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Prisons against a Service Tribunal judgment that exonerated an Assistant Superintendent of Jail, Muhammad Israil, following the escape of five under-trial prisoners. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the officer in charge, was liable for the escape despite the negligence of his subordinates. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in its findings by misreading the evidence. The Court established that as the Chief Executive of the prison, the respondent bore ultimate responsibility for maintaining discipline and ensuring the safe custody of prisoners. His failure to enforce staff presence and conduct mandatory surprise night visits constituted gross negligence. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment. Exercising its constitutional authority to ensure complete justice, the Court enhanced the respondent's punishment from a reduction in rank to compulsory retirement, ruling that an officer responsible for such a lapse was unfit for service. The judgment reaffirms that higher positions entail greater accountability and that supervisory negligence is an aggravating factor in disciplinary matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the responsibility of a jail officer in charge extend to the negligence of subordinates leading to a prisoner escape?
  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan enhance a punishment awarded to a civil servant during an appeal against a Service Tribunal decision?
  • What are the obligations of a prison officer in charge regarding the supervision and discipline of subordinate staff under the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978?
  • Does the misreading of material evidence by a Service Tribunal justify the interference of the Supreme Court in a service matter?
  Read full judgment →
• FAIZUM alias TOOR Versus NANDER KHAN2006 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-09Read full judgment →
• SARTAJ and others Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD2006 SCMR 1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-04
  Islamic law of inheritanceQisas and Diyatcompromise in murder caselegal heirsexclusion of heirscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that remanded a criminal case to the trial court to verify if all legal heirs had consented to a compromise in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased are considered legal heirs entitled to participate in a compromise under the law, or if the father of the deceased, as the sole heir, is exclusively competent to enter into such a compromise. The Supreme Court held that, under Islamic law, the father of an unmarried deceased excludes the brothers and sisters from inheritance. Consequently, the father is the sole legal heir competent to enter into a compromise. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the brothers and sisters were not legal heirs and thus their consent was not required for the compromise. The principle laid down is that the father of an unmarried deceased person inherits to the total exclusion of the deceased's brothers and sisters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the father of an unmarried deceased exclude the brothers and sisters of the deceased from inheritance under Islamic law?
  • Is the consent of the brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased required for a compromise in a murder case?
  • Is the father of an unmarried deceased the sole legal heir competent to enter into a compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF SECRETARY PUNJAB and others Versus ABDUL RAOOF DASTI2006 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-02
  illegal appointmentreversion in ranklien on postinitial recruitmentservice tribunalextraneous groundspublic trustmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Chief Secretary of Punjab challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the reversion of the respondent from the post of Deputy District Attorney (DDA) to Assistant District Attorney (ADA). The respondent, originally an ADA, had obtained a direct appointment as a DDA through the intervention of the Law Minister and the approval of the Chief Minister, bypassing the Public Service Commission and statutory rules. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 resulted in his reversion to ADA. The core legal question was whether a direct appointment secured in violation of recruitment rules could be sustained, and whether a civil servant whose direct appointment is found illegal can revert to a previously held lower post despite having lost lien. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appointment of the respondent as a DDA was illegal, void, and secured through extraneous influence. The Court further ruled that since his appointment was by initial recruitment rather than promotion, he held no lien on the post of ADA and could not fall back upon it, ultimately setting aside the Tribunal's order and declaring that he ceased to be a civil servant. The key principle laid down is that illegal appointments made through nepotism and extraneous considerations violate public trust, preclude the retention of a prior lien upon invalid direct recruitment, and warrant complete cessation of service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a direct appointment to a public post made in violation of recruitment rules and without public advertisement can be sustained under a general power of relaxation?
  • Does a civil servant appointed directly to a higher post retain a lien on their previously held lower post if the higher appointment is declared illegal?
  • Whether non-participation in an inquiry proceeding vitiates the punitive action where material facts are not in dispute and no prejudice is caused?
  • Can the Supreme Court invoke its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan to modify a departmental penalty and declare that a respondent ceases to be a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and others Versus Khawaja SHAHID NAZIR2006 SCMR 1862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-27
  stopgap arrangementservice tribunalreversionevacuee trust property boardlimitationdepartmental appealvested rightpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had set aside the notification reverting the respondent from the post of Secretary (BPS-19) to his substantive post of Zonal Administrator (BPS-18) in the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The core legal question was whether the respondent's appointment as Secretary was a regular promotion creating vested rights or merely a stopgap arrangement, and whether his departmental appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an appointment made 'until further orders' constitutes a stopgap arrangement rather than a regular promotion, which can be terminated without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the Court held that a time-barred departmental appeal renders a subsequent service appeal incompetent. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made 'till further orders' constitute a regular promotion or a stopgap arrangement?
  • Can an employee reverted from a stopgap appointment claim a right to a show-cause notice or hearing?
  • Is a service appeal competent when the underlying departmental appeal is barred by time?
  • Whether the post of Secretary of the Evacuee Trust Property Board is a promotional post for board employees under the applicable regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.189 of 2006, decided on 28th April, 2006. Versus Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.189 of 2006, decided on 28th April, 2006.2006 SCMR 1805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-28
  juvenile justicesuo motuillegal detentionjudicial remandpolice misconductfettering of minorsjudicial discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suo motu action initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan following media reports regarding the illegal detention and shackling of minor children by police in Hyderabad. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the detention of juveniles, the application of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the propriety of the judicial remand orders passed by the Magistrate. The Court held that the detention of the minors was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which mandates that juveniles should not be handcuffed, fettered, or subjected to corporal punishment, and should ideally be released on bail or placed under the custody of a Probation Officer. The Court found that the Judicial Magistrate had acted illegally by remanding a juvenile to judicial custody, citing an incorrect and suspended judgment to justify his actions. Consequently, the Court restrained the Magistrate from exercising judicial powers pending departmental proceedings and directed the police to expedite investigations into the conduct of the responsible officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 prohibit the handcuffing and shackling of minors in police custody?
  • Can a Judicial Magistrate remand a juvenile to judicial custody when the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides for alternative custody arrangements?
  • Is a Judicial Magistrate justified in relying on a High Court judgment that has been suspended by the Supreme Court?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for a Magistrate when a juvenile is produced before them without a guardian?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No.3062 of 2006 (anonymous application), decided on 6th July, 2006. Versus Human Rights Case No.3062 of 2006 (anonymous application), decided on 6th July, 2006.2006 SCMR 1780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-06Read full judgment →
• Faqir ABDUL MAJEED KHAN Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER2006 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and another Versus State2006 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-06-22
  criminal appealplea of alibiappreciation of evidenceocular testimonycorroborative evidenceabsconsionfinger print expertrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the complainant's ocular testimony, the validity of the plea of alibi supported by jail records, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unsustainable due to misreading of evidence and failure to apply settled legal principles. The Court found the complainant's presence at the crime scene highly improbable given the intensity of the attack and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the recovery evidence due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and unexplained delays in forensic submission. Regarding the alibi, the Court ruled that the Finger Print Expert's report lacked evidentiary value absent proof of comparison with undisputed thumb impressions. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, establishing that absconsion is not corroborative evidence and that ocular testimony disbelieved against some co-accused cannot sustain convictions against others without independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony that has been disbelieved regarding some co-accused be relied upon to convict others without independent corroboration?
  • Is the evidence of absconsion considered a valid piece of corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
  • Does a Finger Print Expert's report have evidentiary value if there is no proof of comparison between disputed and undisputed thumb impressions?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to comply with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE2006 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-25Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others Versus GHULAM SHABBIR2006 SCMR 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State2006 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-17
  murder convictionsole eye-witnessresiling complainantFIR corroborationrecovery of weaponcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister-in-law under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness, the father of the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction when the complainant had resiled from his initial statement at trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court determined that the presence of the deceased's father at the scene was natural and his testimony credible, particularly when supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court laid down the principle that while an FIR is not substantive evidence, it may serve as a source of independent corroboration when the testimony of a witness is consistent with the facts originally recorded therein. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appellant's guilt were upheld as the evidence was deemed unimpeachable and free from legal defect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the sole testimony of an eye-witness when the complainant has resiled at trial?
  • Is an FIR considered substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can an FIR be used for independent corroboration of a witness's testimony?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon at the instance of an accused provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No.3212 of 2006, decided on 6th July, 2006. Versus Human Rights Case No.3212 of 2006, decided on 6th July, 2006.2006 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-07-06Read full judgment →
• MAZHAR HUSSAIN Versus State2006 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-20
  post-arrest baildissolution of marriageHudood Ordinancefurther inquiryvalidity of court decreecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for bail filed by the petitioner, Mazhar Hussain, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 179 of 2002 at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad, for an alleged offence under the Hudood Ordinance involving an illicit liaison with the complainant's wife, Mst. Nasreen. The petitioner contended that Mst. Nasreen had obtained a court decree dissolving her previous marriage to the complainant, Faqir Hussain, and had subsequently married the petitioner of her own free will, resulting in a child. While the State argued that the dissolution decree was ex parte and therefore questionable, the Court observed that the decree remained valid and had not been annulled by any appellate court. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry, satisfying the criteria for bail. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, with the petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a marriage dissolved by a court decree, which has not been annulled by an appellate court, preclude the commission of an offence under the Hudood Ordinance?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the validity of a divorce decree remains a matter requiring further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus State2006 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-30
  death sentencedouble murderleave to appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal liabilityeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the death sentence of the petitioner for the double murder of two women. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution initially alleged five attackers were involved, yet the High Court acquitted two co-accused, thereby suggesting the petitioner should not bear sole liability for the deaths. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that while the High Court acquitted the co-accused due to the lack of identification parades and the witnesses' inability to identify them earlier, the petitioner’s case was distinct. The Court found that the eye-witnesses, who were the petitioner's nieces, had consistently assigned a specific role to him in their statements. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused did not create a mitigating circumstance for the petitioner, as the evidence against him remained distinct and credible. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal and affirming the death sentence, establishing that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle a remaining convict to a reduced sentence where specific evidence of their individual culpability exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on identification issues automatically entitle a remaining convict to a reduced sentence?
  • Is an in-court identification of accused persons valid when no identification parade was conducted and the witnesses were minors at the time of the occurrence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained against one accused when the prosecution initially alleged the involvement of multiple attackers?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SABIR Versus State2006 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-04-06
  murderleave to appealfalse defence pleaappreciation of evidenceprivate defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the petitioner's conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased by stabbing. The core legal question involved the assessment of the prosecution's case in light of a specific defence plea and private version of events set up by the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging private defence and involvement of his sister. The Supreme Court held that the defence plea was implausible, fabricated, and rightly rejected by the courts below, while the prosecution had successfully and independently proved its case through eye-witnesses, medical evidence, motive, and recoveries. The court laid down the principle that while an accused cannot be condemned solely for taking a false plea, the court remains bound to independently evaluate and consider the prosecution evidence to establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of taking a false plea in defence?
  • Whether the court is bound to consider prosecution evidence independently even if the defence plea is found to be false?
  • Does the failure of a defence plea under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically strengthen the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH BAKHSH Versus THE STATE2006 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-23
  Qatl-e-AmdQatl-e-Khataocular evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) as alleged by the complainant, or Qatl-e-Khata (accidental killing) as suggested by a police re-investigation report. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses was consistent, trustworthy, and established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The Court further ruled that the absence of a forensic science laboratory report regarding the recovered weapon did not necessitate acquittal when other evidence was cogent and convincing. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the lower courts' reliance on the eye-witness account over the police's investigative conclusion, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a forensic science laboratory report regarding a recovered weapon automatically entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can ocular evidence prevail over a police investigation report suggesting accidental death?
  • Is a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd sustainable when the prosecution relies on eye-witness testimony despite conflicting police investigation findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. ZULFIQAR AHMAD Versus AFTAB-UL-HAQ2005 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-10Read full judgment →
• Haji SAID WAHAB KHAN Versus AMJAD ALI2005 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE2005 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-28
  service matterage relaxationillegal terminationmunicipal committeeconstitutional petitionreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against the termination of the petitioner's service as an Encroachment Inspector by the Municipal Committee, Tandalianwala. The core legal question concerns the legality of the petitioner's appointment and whether his being over-age invalidated his selection, given that rule 5(3) of the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 permits relaxation of the upper-age limit up to five years. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declaring the appointment illegal on the ground of age disqualification, as the Chairman of the Municipal Committee possessed the requisite statutory authority to relax the age limit up to five years, and the petitioner's case had been mistakenly referred to the provincial government for a minor remaining period. The appeal was accepted, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated, and the competent authority was directed to formally determine the remaining age relaxation pursuant to the applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of a Municipal Committee is competent to grant relaxation in the upper-age limit for employment under the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983?
  • Can an appointment be declared illegal solely on the ground of being over-age when the competent authority possesses the statutory power to relax the age limit?
  • Whether the High Court can refuse to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction based on a mistaken assumption regarding a candidate's qualification and age relaxation?
  Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BAHAWALPUR Versus RIZWAN RASHID2005 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN2005 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-08Read full judgment →
• REHMAT WAZIR Versus SHER AFZAL2005 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. GHULAM BANO alias GULAB BANO Versus Mst. NOOR JEHAN2005 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-02-11
  colonization of government landsinheritance of tenancyshariat successionconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionforged challanagricultural land allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision judgment wherein the High Court declared the respondents' predecessor to be the sole owner of disputed agricultural land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912. The core legal question concerned whether the original allottee had paid the full price during his lifetime, thereby making him absolute owner whose estate devolves under Sharia, or whether his son subsequently paid the balance, entitling him to exclusive tenancy succession. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts—that the original allottee had cleared all dues before his death—were supported by the record and that the opposing receipt relied upon by the son was forged and fictitious. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the concurrent decrees in favour of the daughters were restored. The key principles laid down include that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be lightly interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless perverse, and that tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 devolve in accordance with Sharia if the original allottee became full owner during his lifetime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of land price under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912?
  • Does the succession to a tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 devolve under Sharia if the original allottee paid the full price during his lifetime?
  • Can the retrospective application of section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 override the special provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Punjab Act, 1912 where the tenant died prior to 1951?
  Read full judgment →
• RAMESH M. UDESHI Versus THE STATE2005 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-14
  Ehtesab Referenceabuse of official positionallotment of landpublic office holdercriminal appealacquittalsummary to Chief Minister
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a former Secretary of the Land Utilization Department, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Ehtesab Act No. IX of 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abused his official position by submitting a summary to the Chief Minister recommending the allotment of state land to private beneficiaries at a throwaway price in violation of an existing ban, thereby causing a massive loss to the state exchequer. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act of preparing and forwarding the summary, which correctly disclosed all relevant facts, the ban on land disposal, and the statutory requirements, constituted a criminal abuse of authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the summary was prepared in accordance with law, fully disclosing all material facts and legal constraints. In the absence of any evidence of mala fide intention, illegal gratification, or personal pecuniary gain, a conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public official be convicted of corruption for submitting a summary to a superior authority that accurately discloses all relevant facts and legal constraints?
  • Whether a conviction for corruption or abuse of official position can be sustained in the absence of evidence showing mala fide intention, illegal gratification, or personal pecuniary gain?
  • Can a subordinate officer be held criminally liable for acting as a conduit to communicate the approved orders of a superior authority?
  Read full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE2005 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-01-27
  compromisecompounding of offenceTa'zirQisasDiyatlegal heirsmurder sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's application for acquittal or reduction of sentence on the basis of a partial compromise. The petitioner had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While some legal heirs of the deceased (the widow and a major daughter) agreed to waive their right of Qisas and Diyat, the parents of the deceased refused to join the compromise. The core legal question was whether a death sentence awarded as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be compounded where only some, but not all, of the legal heirs of the deceased agree to the compromise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that while a sentence of Qisas may be compounded by some of the legal heirs subject to statutory conditions, a sentence of Ta'zir under Section 302(b) is governed by Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which strictly requires the consent of all legal heirs of the deceased to compound the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of death awarded as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded if only some of the legal heirs of the deceased agree to the compromise?
  • Does the waiver of Qisas by some legal heirs under Section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to cases where the offender is sentenced to Ta'zir under Section 302(b)?
  • Is the court empowered to grant permission to compound a Ta'zir murder offence under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the consent of all legal heirs of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. AMEERAN KHATOON Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR2005 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR SATTI Versus Mst. AASIA KHATOON2005 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-13
  LianQazfZinadissolution of marriagetalaqillegitimate childHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court was directed against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had allowed a criminal revision filed by the respondent wife. The appellant husband had pronounced divorce (Talaq) upon his wife and, in the same notice, accused her of unchastity and giving birth to an illegitimate child. The respondent subsequently filed a complaint against the appellant under Sections 7 and 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. During the trial, the appellant sought to initiate proceedings for Lian under Section 14 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a charge of Zina leveled against a wife by her husband along with a divorce attracts the provisions of Lian, and whether Lian is applicable once the marriage is dissolved. The Supreme Court held that for Lian proceedings to be initiated under Section 14 of the Ordinance, the relationship of husband and wife must subsist at the time of the accusation. Since the marriage had already been dissolved, Lian was inapplicable, and the husband could be tried for the offence of Qazf.

  Questions settled

  • Does a charge of Zina leveled against a wife by her husband along with a divorce notice attract the proceedings of Lian under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can proceedings for Lian be initiated or maintained under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 after the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved?
  • Is the subsistence of a valid marriage a condition precedent for invoking the procedure of Lian under Islamic law and the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus I. A. SHARWANI2005 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-01-09
  pension rightscivil servantsdiscriminatory classificationIslamic InjunctionsFederal Shariat Courtpension revisionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Federal Shariat Court judgment that declared the classification of pensioners into 'old' and 'new' categories discriminatory and inconsistent with Islamic Injunctions. The core legal question was whether civil servants of the same grade, retiring on different dates, are entitled to identical pension amounts, and whether the government's failure to equalize these amounts violates Islamic principles of 'Adl' and 'Ihsan.' The Supreme Court held that pension is a statutory right governed by the rules in force at the time of retirement. The Court ruled that the classification of pensioners based on retirement dates is reasonable and not discriminatory, as pension quantum is tied to emoluments and service length at the time of retirement. Consequently, the revision of pay scales for serving employees does not grant retired employees a right to notional pension revision. The Court concluded that existing pension laws are not repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, as the government retains discretion to manage pension schemes within fiscal constraints. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the original petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the classification of pensioners into 'old' and 'new' categories based on retirement dates discriminatory?
  • Does the revision of pay scales for serving civil servants automatically entitle retired employees to a notional revision of their pension?
  • Are pension laws that differentiate between pensioners based on retirement dates inconsistent with the Islamic principles of 'Adl' and 'Ihsan'?
  • Is a pension a statutory right that must be determined by the rules in force at the time of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja AHMAD HASSAAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2005 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-09-02Read full judgment →
• Syed ISHAQUE HUSSAIN RIZVI Versus Sheikh MUBARIK ALI2005 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-05-02
  specific performancecompromise decreesubsequent agreement to sellexecution of decreelis pendensbona fide purchaser
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves direct cross-civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning competing claims over agricultural land based on multiple agreements to sell and a prior compromise decree. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of a separate suit under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in relation to a subsequent agreement, the validity of agreements executed post-decree, and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to sales executed during the pendency of proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a subsequent agreement independent of a prior compromise decree can validly form the basis of a suit for specific performance, and that section 47 does not bar such a separate suit where the rights do not flow directly from the execution of the decree itself. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding the subsequent agreement void and restored the appellate court's judgment decreeing the suit in full.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a separate suit for specific performance is barred under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for enforcing an agreement executed subsequent to a compromise decree?
  • Does an agreement to sell executed after the passing of a compromise decree acquire the status of an independent, valid document creating enforceable rights in property?
  • Whether a sale-deed executed during the pendency of a suit is hit by the principle of lis pendens and affects the rights of prior claimants?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus State2005 SCMR 1431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-05-17
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessesforensic science reportchain of custodyleave to appealpresumption of truth
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner contended that the occurrence was unwitnessed, the ocular evidence was provided by interested witnesses, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the number of gunshot wounds. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the integrity of the forensic evidence, arguing that the chain of custody for crime empties was not established. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the FIR was lodged without delay and the ocular witnesses remained consistent under cross-examination. Regarding the forensic evidence, the Court held that the official report from the Forensic Science Expert carries a presumption of truth, which the petitioner failed to rebut during the trial. Finding the conviction unexceptionable and noting the absence of any question of law of public importance, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic science report carry a presumption of truth regarding the receipt of evidence if not challenged during trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence if the witness is related to the deceased?
  • Is a dishonest concession by a witness regarding the delivery of forensic parcels sufficient to invalidate a forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus WALI MUHAMMAD2005 SCMR 1297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-10Read full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD and others Versus GHULAM FARID through L.Rs. and others2005 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-01-26
  leave to appealinheritance disputeconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidencecustomary lawIslamic injunctionsRiwaj
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a property inheritance dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the deceased daughter predeceased her father, making the petitioners (collaterals) entitled to the legacy under Riwaj, or survived him, making the respondents legal heirs entitled to the property under Islamic Injunctions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered with the concurrent findings upon discovering a misreading of evidence by the lower courts, specifically relying on the testimony of a witness and documentary evidence showing the daughter survived the father. The Court affirmed that inheritance must be governed according to the Injunctions of Islam rather than custom (Riwaj) under such circumstances, dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts in revision?
  • Does a misreading of evidence by lower courts warrant interference by the High Court?
  • Whether inheritance is to be governed by Riwaj or Islamic Injunctions when evidence shows a daughter survived her father?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD2005 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-02-24
  departmental proceedingscriminal prosecutionservice lawwheat shortagedisciplinary actionmutual exclusivityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner, a Food-grain Inspector, regarding a wheat stock shortage. The petitioner had been removed from service and ordered to pay recovery for a loss of 354 metric tons of wheat. The Tribunal set aside the removal but maintained a reduced recovery order, citing the petitioner's joint responsibility for the loss due to failure to conduct proper weighment during the handover of charge. The core legal question was whether the police's discharge of the petitioner in a parallel criminal case precluded departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings are mutually exclusive and can proceed simultaneously. The Court affirmed that a police investigation's findings regarding guilt are not binding on departmental authorities, who may independently determine misconduct under service rules. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law of public importance and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the petitioner's negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discharge of a civil servant by the police in a criminal case preclude departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Are criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings mutually exclusive and capable of being taken simultaneously?
  • Is the finding of the police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused binding on departmental authorities in disciplinary matters?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR Versus THE STATE2005 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appeallast-seen evidencesafe dispensation of criminal justicerecovery evidencecapital punishmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Zulfiqar, was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, for offences under sections 302(b), 365, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence, which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. The conviction relied primarily on 'last-seen' evidence and the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased, which occurred fifteen days after the incident at the petitioner's pointation. Notably, the trial court had acquitted the petitioner's co-accused based on contradictory prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the 'last-seen' evidence and the delayed recovery of articles were legally sufficient to establish guilt, particularly given that the same prosecution evidence was rejected regarding the co-accused. The Court also seeks to examine whether the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice were adhered to by the lower courts in maintaining the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on 'last-seen' evidence and delayed recovery when the same evidence was disbelieved regarding co-accused?
  • Does the rejection of prosecution evidence against co-accused on grounds of contradiction necessitate a re-evaluation of the same evidence against the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →