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.
- ADMINISTRATOR DISTRICT COUNCIL Versus GHULAB KHAN2001 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-10Read full judgment →
- AYESHA BAI Versus ZAHID HUSSAIN2001 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA Versus RIFAT SHEIKH2001 SCMR 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-12-06Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM HAIDER KAZMI Versus PRESIDING OFFICER2001 SCMR 1270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-20Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus SHAKEEL HUSSAIN2001 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- AMJAD ALI Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Tanvir Ahmad , Qazi Mohyuddin Muhammad Awan and M. Aslam Ch2001 SCMR 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a set of civil petitions and criminal originals concerning the termination of services of employees appointed on ad hoc and regularized bases by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad. The core legal questions involved the validity of summarily terminating the services of probationers and ad hoc employees without holding a formal inquiry or providing a prior hearing. The Supreme Court held that the termination of regularized employees while they were still serving their probation period was strictly in accordance with their appointment terms and Regulation No. 12(2) of the Service Regulations of the Employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, as termination simpliciter of a probationer does not require prior notice or hearing. Furthermore, ad hoc appointees possess no vested right to claim continuation in service or challenge the termination of their fixed-term employment. The petitions and criminal originals were accordingly dismissed, with a directive that age relaxation be granted to the petitioners in future public advertisements for the vacancies.
Questions settled- Whether the services of an employee on probation can be terminated without a prior hearing when the termination is simpliciter and not by way of punishment?
- Does an ad hoc appointee have a vested right to claim continuation in service or challenge the termination of their appointment upon expiry of the term?
- Can the appointing authority dispense with the services of a probationer whose work or conduct is found to be unsatisfactory under Regulation No. 12(2)?
- PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL2001 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The respondent, a former employee of the petitioner, had previously challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court and subsequently the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the petitioner's constitutional petition pending before the Sindh High Court abated. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed for being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner had provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that the appeal was correctly dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred, noting that the petitioner failed to account for each day of delay following the abatement of the constitutional petition. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that statutory limitation periods must be strictly adhered to and that unexplained delays warrant the dismissal of an appeal.
Questions settled- Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 cause the abatement of pending constitutional petitions regarding service matters?
- Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal liable to be dismissed if filed beyond the 90-day limitation period without sufficient explanation for the delay?
- Must a petitioner account for each day of delay when seeking condonation for a time-barred appeal?
- ATTIYYA BIBI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ali Hasan Shah2001 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This multi-appeal matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning admissions to medical colleges in the Punjab for the academic session 1997-1998, specifically challenging the prospectus provisions regarding merit evaluation formulas for foreign qualifications (such as G.C.E. A-Level and American systems) and various reserved quotas for seats. The core legal questions revolved around whether quotas for doctors' children, defense forces personnel, underdeveloped districts, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and other categories violated fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court held that reservations for doctors' children and defense forces personnel were unconstitutional and discriminatory, while permitting reservations for disabled persons, FATA, and underdeveloped districts under strict conditions. The Court laid down that admissions to professional educational institutions must primarily be based on merit, and any classification for reserved seats must satisfy the test of reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the constitutional objective of achieving genuine equality.
Questions settled- Whether the reservation of seats in professional medical colleges for children of doctors and defense forces personnel violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a classification for reserved seats in educational institutions be considered a reasonable classification without a rational nexus to the constitutional objective of merit?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect students whose provisional admissions were finalized and acted upon before a court judgment invalidating the underlying admission policy?
- Whether candidates belonging to Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) can be subjected to educational restrictions regarding where they receive their secondary education to qualify for reserved seats?
- NASRULLAH KHAN Versus RASUL BIBI2001 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-19Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM ANJUM2001 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ Versus THE STATE2001 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition, in essence a second review petition, was filed by the convict-petitioner against this Court's judgment dismissing his criminal review petition, which had earlier upheld his conviction for Qatl-e-Amd and offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, along with sentences of death and forfeiture of property awarded by the Special Court and affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether a second review petition or a constitutional petition in the nature of a second review is maintainable under Pakistani law or Islamic jurisprudence, and what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that review proceedings are not a re-hearing or an appeal, that reappraisal of evidence does not furnish a ground for review or a second review, and that under Islamic law, multiple review petitions are not maintainable without satisfying strict conditions precedent including an apparent injustice and appropriate societal moral standards. The key principles established relate to the strict and limited scope of review powers and the non-maintainability of successive review petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a second review petition or a constitutional petition in the nature of a second review is maintainable against a judgment of the Supreme Court?
- What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Pakistani law?
- Does Islamic jurisprudence permit any number of review petitions against judicial verdicts?
- Can a court entertain a review petition solely on the ground of re-appraisal of evidence or erroneous inferences drawn from facts?
- QADIR BAKHSH Versus NIZAM-UD-DIN KHAN2001 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose out of a pre-emption suit where the trial court had initially dismissed the suit on ground of limitation due to delayed payment of court-fees and improper extension/modification of Zar-e-Panjam under Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Appellate Court and High Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, decreeing the suit. The Supreme Court considered whether the suit was barred by limitation upon subsequent payment of deficit court-fee, whether the trial court possessed statutory discretion under Section 22 to extend time or substitute a cash deposit with personal security, and whether the general power of attorney granted authority to file the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower appellate judgments, holding that when deficient court-fees are supplied within court-granted time, the suit relates back and is not time-barred. It further held that Section 22(4) leaves open the trial court's discretion to alter its option between cash deposit and security bond before issues are settled. Additionally, an unobjected general power of attorney granting extensive management rights validly confers authority to institute litigation.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emption suit become time-barred if deficient court-fees are made good within time extended by the court after the expiration of limitation?
- Whether the trial court possesses statutory discretion under Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 to extend time for Zar-e-Panjam or substitute cash deposit with a security bond?
- Can an objection regarding the authority under a general power of attorney be raised for the first time at the appellate stage after full participation in lower court proceedings without objection?
- ALI HASSAN Versus THE STATE2001 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a post-arrest bail petition on the ground that it was barred by the rule established in The State v. Zubair (PLD 1986 SC 173) regarding successive bail applications. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of a bail application simpliciter constitutes a decision on merits so as to attract the bar against subsequent bail applications without fresh grounds. The Supreme Court held that withdrawing a bail application without a decision on merits does not bar the filing of a subsequent bail application, provided that propriety requires the subsequent application to be heard by the same judge or bench that permitted the withdrawal. The Court clarified that Zubair's case applies where an application is heard and disposed of on merits or where grounds are considered and rejected, but not where an application is merely withdrawn without pressing. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded to the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a bail application simpliciter constitute a disposal on merits so as to bar a subsequent bail application?
- Whether a subsequent bail application following the withdrawal of a previous one must be placed before the same judge or bench?
- What is the true scope and effect of the rule laid down in The State v. Zubair regarding successive bail applications?
- ANWAR SAIFULLAH KHAN Versus THE STATE2001 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by a former Federal Minister seeking bail in two accountability references concerning the alleged misuse of authority in allocating liquefied petroleum gas (L.P.G.) quotas. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court of Pakistan has jurisdiction to grant bail under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 despite the statutory ouster clause, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the trial's delay and the settlement reached with his co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the ouster of jurisdiction clause in Section 9(b) of the Ordinance, which mentions 'no Court (including the High Court)', excludes the Supreme Court of Pakistan, thereby preserving its jurisdiction to grant bail. On the merits, the Court observed that the delay in concluding the trial was not attributable to the petitioner, the co-accused had settled their liabilities with the government resulting in the confirmation of their quotas, and the petitioner gained nothing personally. The Court laid down the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment and allowed the appeals, admitting the petitioner to bail.
Questions settled- Does the ouster of jurisdiction clause in Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 bar the Supreme Court of Pakistan from granting bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment during the pendency of a trial under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999?
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the delay in the trial is not attributable to their conduct and the co-accused have settled their liabilities with the state?
- SAMAR GUL Versus MOHABAT KHAN2000 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning land in Swabi, involving rival claims of mortgagees in possession and subsequent purchasers. The core legal questions pertained to whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below under revisional jurisdiction, and whether the revenue records sufficiently established the plaintiffs' mortgage rights and status. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court correctly intervened regarding a portion of the land (1 Kanal and 2 Marlas) covered by a valid sale mutation that the lower courts had misread, it erred in entirely dismissing the plaintiffs' suit when concurrent findings regarding the remaining land were properly supported by the settlement record. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, restoring the declaratory and possessory decree for 4 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land while leaving the parties to seek appropriate remedies regarding the disputed portion.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a plea of limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 be raised for the first time or sustained when the finding on the issue was not challenged through cross-objections before the first appellate court?
- Do entries in the revenue record and record-of-rights carry a presumption of genuineness sufficient to establish mortgagee status in the absence of a registered mortgage deed?
- GULZED HUSSAIN Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD2000 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his services in 1990 on the grounds that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, added via Act XVII of 1997, was not retrospective in operation. The core legal question was whether section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 applies retrospectively to cover departmental orders passed and pending proceedings initiated prior to its enactment. The Supreme Court held, following its earlier precedent, that section 2-A is retrospective in operation as a procedural law, meaning pending proceedings before other forums regarding pre-amendment orders must abate and the sole remedy lies before the Federal Service Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was remanded for a decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 operates retrospectively, transferring jurisdiction over service disputes of statutory corporation employees to the Service Tribunal regardless of the date of the impugned order.
Questions settled- Whether section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is retrospective in its operation?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against departmental orders passed before the insertion of section 2-A?
- What is the effect of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on proceedings pending before forums other than the Service Tribunal?
- SANA ULLAH Versus RASHID AHMAD KHOKHAR2000 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE2000 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had converted the appellant Abdul Ghafoor's death sentence into life imprisonment under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following a conviction for the murder of Safdar Ali. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence furnished by related and allegedly interested witnesses in the backdrop of deep-rooted enmity, the necessity of corroboration, the evaluation of defense testimony, and the effect of an unexplained delay in filing the appeal coupled with non-recovery of crime empties. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses was consistent, trustworthy, and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence, site plans, and the recovery of blood-stained earth, and that non-recovery of empties was not fatal to the prosecution. Furthermore, because the appeal lacked merit, the delay of over three years in filing was not condoned. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a related or interested eye-witness be accepted without independent corroboration in a criminal case?
- Does the non-recovery of crime empties from the place of incident prove fatal to the prosecution case?
- Whether an unexplained and prolonged delay in filing a criminal appeal can be condoned when the appeal lacks merits?
- What constitutes sufficient corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses in a murder trial?
- WAPDA Versus KHANIMULLAH2000 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed by WAPDA against the reinstatement of work-charged employees by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal. The respondents, employed for the 'Mardan SCARP' project, were terminated upon the project's completion. The core legal question was whether these employees, despite their length of service, qualified as 'permanent workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby entitling them to reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the status of a workman is determined by the nature of the work, not the duration of employment. Since the respondents were engaged for a specific project that had concluded, they were not 'permanent workmen' under the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders, ruling that the termination of work-charged employees upon the completion of the specific project for which they were hired is lawful. The principle established is that length of service alone does not convert a temporary, project-based work-charged appointment into permanent employment if the underlying work is not of a permanent nature.
Questions settled- Does the length of employment by itself determine whether a worker is a 'permanent workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Are work-charged employees engaged for a specific project entitled to remain in service after the completion of that project?
- Does the Labour Court have the power to examine questions of fact under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- FIRDOUS IQBAL Versus SHIFAAT ALI2000 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-02-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF2000 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ Versus STATE2000 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arose from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of Sadiq Gunji, Director of Khanae Farhang, Islamic Republic of Iran, outside Hotel International, Lahore. The appellant, Haq Nawaz, was convicted of murder, criminal conspiracy, and explosive substances offences by the trial court, which also convicted several co-accused. The High Court maintained the appellant's conviction and death sentence but acquitted the co-accused. The Supreme Court addressed whether the appellant's judicial confession was inadmissible because it was recorded after the alleged commencement of trial, and whether the non-examination of certain eye-witnesses and the absence of an identification parade invalidated the conviction. The Court held that taking cognizance of an offence is not synonymous with the commencement of trial, which only begins when charges are framed and copies of prosecution documents are supplied to the accused. It further held that the prosecution is not bound to examine all cited witnesses, and that the absence of an identification parade is immaterial when the accused is named in a prompt FIR and identified at the scene. Finding the appellant's retracted confession fully corroborated by ocular, recovery, and ballistic evidence, the Court dismissed both appeals.
Questions settled- Whether the taking of cognizance of an offence by a court is synonymous with the commencement of trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a conviction for a capital offence be safely based on a retracted confession if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence?
- Is the prosecution bound to examine all witnesses cited in the First Information Report or calendar of witnesses to prove its case?
- Whether the recording of a confessional statement of an accused on oath or solemn affirmation is legal and admissible in evidence?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus THE STATE2000 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 688 of 1998 registered under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of distinguishable role and advanced age. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case could not be distinguished from the main accused at this preliminary stage, as prima facie allegations of common intention and direct participation—including firing a carbine resulting in injuries—were reflected in the record, and further held that old age simpliciter does not entitle an accused to bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and bail refused, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of advanced age?
- Can the case of an accused credited with a specific firearm injury be distinguished from the main accused at the preliminary bail stage when common intention is alleged?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE2000 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Lahore High Court, which convicted him under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one person and for causing a murderous assault on another, sentencing him to death and imprisonment respectively, upon a reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case, established through prompt First Information Report, ocular testimony of the complainant and an injured eyewitness, medical evidence, and corroborative forensic reports matching recovered crime empties with the petitioner's pistol, detailed that the dispute arose over sullage water flowing into the complainant's land. The petitioner raised a plea of grave and sudden provocation, claiming he acted after seeing his wife and daughter being assaulted, but led no defence evidence. The Supreme Court held that the defence plea was unsubstantiated, that the ocular testimony of the father and injured brother was truthful and reliable, and that the brutal nature of the crime warranted no leniency. The court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an unproven plea of grave and sudden provocation can be sustained without leading defence evidence or examining witnesses to the alleged incident?
- Whether the testimony of an injured witness and a close relative can be relied upon for conviction in a murder trial without independent corroboration?
- Does the non-production of all witnesses named in the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case when reliable eyewitness testimony is available?
- Whether forensic matching of crime empties with a recovered weapon provides sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- RASOOL BAKHSH Versus STATE2000 SCMR 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife and another individual, and for illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal questions concern whether a retracted judicial confession, recorded ten days post-arrest, is admissible without independent corroboration; whether the recovery of the weapon, lacking independent witnesses as per Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is valid; and whether the act constitutes murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or an offence under Ikrah-i-Naqis. The Court held that a retracted confession is admissible if it aligns with other prosecution evidence, such as ballistic reports and medical findings. It further held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a rule of procedure, not evidence, and police testimony suffices when independent witnesses are unavailable. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that 'Siah-Kari' (suspicion of illicit relations) does not mitigate murder, and the facts did not support a plea of Ikrah-i-Naqis. The principles established emphasize the admissibility of retracted confessions corroborated by forensic evidence and the flexibility of recovery procedures.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon if it is consistent with other prosecution evidence?
- Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the recovery of a weapon render the recovery evidence inadmissible?
- Does an allegation of Siah-Kari constitute a mitigating circumstance for the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can police testimony regarding the recovery of a weapon be accepted in the absence of independent witnesses?
- BAKHSHAI Versus QUTUB-UD-DIN2000 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-14Read full judgment →
- SHAKEEL AKHTAR Versus M.S. MENTAL HOSPITAL , M. Sharif Butt2000 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns 47 petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of various para-medical staff from government hospitals. The petitioners had engaged in a strike, abandoning their duties despite public notices and warnings issued by the competent authority, which resulted in the paralysis of hospital administration and patient casualties. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of these employees, who defied repeated directives to return to work, was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the dismissals were unexceptionable, noting that the petitioners' conduct was irresponsible and caused severe hardship to patients. The Court emphasized that the employees were subject to the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, which prohibits such strikes and imposes criminal liability for unauthorized absence. The key principle laid down is that public sector employees in essential services, such as hospital staff, have no legal justification to strike, and their willful absence from duty despite warnings warrants disciplinary action, including dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Can public sector employees in essential services legally go on strike?
- Does the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1958 prohibit hospital staff from abandoning their duties?
- Is the dismissal of hospital staff justified when they remain absent from duty despite repeated public warnings?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR2000 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision filed by the petitioner, the Province of Punjab. The respondent, a dismissed civil servant, had successfully challenged his 1967 dismissal through a civil suit, resulting in an ex parte decree in 1981. The petitioner's subsequent applications to set aside the ex parte decree and appeals were dismissed by the lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that under Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, the civil suit had abated and the trial court's proceedings were coram non judice. The Supreme Court held that under Section 4(c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, no appeal lay to the Service Tribunal against departmental orders passed before July 1, 1969. Since the respondent's dismissal occurred in 1967, the civil suit was competent. The Court further held that the government could not be excused for its negligence in failing to appear, and a valuable right accrued to the respondent by efflux of time could not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit challenging a departmental dismissal passed before 1st July 1969 abates under Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- Can an ex parte decree be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where the government fails to appear despite service due to the negligence of its counsel?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against departmental decisions made prior to 1st July 1969?
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROVINCIAL BULIDING Versus MUZAFAR BIL HAQ2000 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Building Circle, Lahore, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed the service appeal of respondent No. 1 and directed his parent department to allow him to join within seven days. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation for an extended period, whose permanent absorption in the borrowing department never materialized, could be refused entry back into his parent department on the ground that his lien had terminated. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent was never permanently absorbed in the borrowing department, he remained on deputation and his lien in the parent department subsisted, making the refusal to take him back untenable. The court established the principle that a government employee's lien in their parent department is not terminated unless they are validly and permanently absorbed in the borrowing department, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant lose their lien in the parent department when posted on deputation to a borrowing department?
- Whether a civil servant who serves on deputation for an extended period without permanent absorption is entitled to rejoin the parent department?
- Can a government employee's lien be terminated without a valid permanent absorption in the borrowing department?
- ABDUL WHAID Versus SARDAR ALI2000 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-23Read full judgment →
- ASLAM TRADERS Versus ASGHAR ALI TAHIR2000 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-07Read full judgment →
- KHALID SIDDIQUE Versus SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXTION2000 SCMR 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-17Read full judgment →
- MASJID INTIZAMIA COMMITTEE Versus ANJUMAN-E- FALAH-O-BAHBOOD2000 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-01-13Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD WATTO Versus STATE2000 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, brought with leave of the Supreme Court, arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of land against the appellant cooperative society. The core legal questions for consideration were whether the doctrine of indoor management applies to cooperative societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the agreement was void or unauthorized due to internal irregularities in passing the authorizing resolution. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of indoor management is grounded in public policy, equity, and good conscience to protect innocent third parties dealing with corporate entities, and it applies equally to a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, given its status as a body corporate. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish any violation of its bye-laws or lack of quorum at the relevant general body meeting, and that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the valid execution of the agreement were unexceptionable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of indoor management apply to cooperative societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
- Can a cooperative society avoid a contract entered into by its authorized agent on the ground of internal procedural irregularities when dealing with a bona fide third party?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution of a sale agreement open to interference in second appeal without proof of misreading of evidence?
- Does the corporate status conferred upon a cooperative society under section 23 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, bring it within the ambit of corporate protection principles akin to registered companies?
- MUHAMMAD KHALIL Versus MUHAMMAD ABBAS2000 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a complainant's challenge regarding the sentence awarded to the convict for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The respondent was convicted by the trial court under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for inflicting a fatal dagger blow to the victim's chest, penetrating the heart. Although the High Court recognized that the trial court had acted with undue leniency in passing the sentence, it refrained from enhancing it solely because the convict had already served out the period. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an inadequate sentence ought to be enhanced at the appellate stage rather than remanding the case, particularly where leniency was inappropriately granted despite grave conduct. The Supreme Court held that under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, it possesses complete powers to do complete justice without remanding the matter. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and enhanced the sentence from seven years to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can exercise powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to enhance an inadequate sentence to do complete justice without remanding the case?
- Should a lenient sentence under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained merely because the convict has already served out the term imposed by the trial court?
- Whether an intentional fatal injury to a vital organ permits undue leniency in sentencing upon conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- SHAHZADA AYYAZ Versus ZAINAB BIBI2000 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-03Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD DIN2000 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL ZAHIR Versus THE STATE2000 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions and sentences for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly applied Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which provides for lesser punishment, or whether the offence fell under Section 302(b), which mandates harsher penalties, given the absence of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in applying Section 302(c) because the motive—a quarrel occurring a year prior—did not constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate the offence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 302(c) and convicted the appellants under Section 302(b), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The judgment clarifies that Section 302(c) is not a general provision for leniency but is restricted to specific circumstances where Qisas is not applicable under Islamic law. It emphasizes that mitigating factors like provocation must be immediate and grave to warrant a departure from the standard punishment prescribed under Section 302(b).
Questions settled- Does a year-old quarrel constitute grave and sudden provocation for the purpose of sentencing under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to cases of Qatl-i-Amd where no specific mitigating circumstances exist?
- What is the distinction between the application of Section 302(b) and Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of Qatl-i-Amd?
- JAHANZEB KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL2000 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that dismissed a pre-emption suit due to the plaintiff's failure to deposit the required one-third of the sale price within the court-fixed timeframe. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the discretion to extend the time limit for depositing pre-emption money under the amended provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the trial court's extension of time was improper. The ratio decidendi is that under the amended Section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, the court is mandated to dismiss a pre-emption suit if the plaintiff fails to deposit the requisite one-third of the sale price within the time originally fixed by the court. The key principle established is that the statutory requirement to deposit the pre-emption money is mandatory, and failure to comply necessitates the dismissal of the suit, leaving no room for arbitrary extensions of time.
Questions settled- Does the power to fix the time for deposit under Section 24(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 include the power to extend that time?
- Is a court required to dismiss a pre-emption suit if the plaintiff fails to deposit the one-third sale price within the time fixed by the court?
- Does the amendment by N.-W.F.P. Act X of 1992 remove the court's discretion to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money?
- KHAIR DIN Versus O.S.D. CENTRAL RECORD LAHORE2000 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent findings of the settlement authorities and the High Court, which was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, upon an application filed by the petitioner for suo motu review, notice was issued to examine the validity of the authorities' grounds for rejecting the petitioner's claim regarding an entry in the register. The core legal question examined was whether the exercise of suo motu review powers was justified where the petitioner had abandoned his original stand. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner had subsequently applied to purchase the suit land from the settlement authorities and had surrendered his rights in favour of a third party through civil court proceedings, he could not be permitted to reassert his original claim. Consequently, the Court ruled that it was not a fit case for the exercise of suo motu power and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party who abandons their original claim and seeks alternative remedies cannot invoke the extraordinary suo motu jurisdiction of the Court to re-litigate the settled matter.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner reassert an original claim through suo motu review after having abandoned it and sought alternative remedies before settlement authorities?
- Whether suo motu review powers can be exercised when the matter is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and subsequent surrender of rights?
- ABDUS SALAM Versus THE STATE2000 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan confirming the appellant's conviction under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death for the murder of his mother. The core legal question concerned the distinction between Qisas and Ta'zir punishments for Qatl-i-amd under section 302, the standard of proof required under section 304 read with Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 (specifically regarding Tazkiya-tul-Shahood), and whether death or life imprisonment is the normal sentence under section 302(b). The Supreme Court held that where the strict requirements for Qisas—such as Tazkiya-tul-Shahood of witnesses—are not fulfilled, the conviction must be recorded under section 302(b) as Ta'zir rather than section 302(a). The Court further held that under section 302(b), the normal sentence for Qatl-i-amd remains death, and a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life can only be awarded if judicial discretion is exercised based on recorded mitigating circumstances. Finding no mitigating circumstances, the Court converted the conviction from section 302(a) to 302(b) while maintaining the death sentence and dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Is there any bar in awarding punishment with death as provided by section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where Qatl-i-amd cannot be punished with death as Qisas under section 302(a)?
- What is the standard of proof required by section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for proving Qatl-i-amd liable to Qisas?
- What is the normal sentence for Qatl-i-amd when punished as Ta'zir under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the unfulfilled requirement of Tazkiya-tul-Shahood for eye-witnesses precludes a conviction under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qisas?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL GHANI2000 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a revision petition, reversed concurrent findings of fact, and dismissed the appellant's pre-emption suit for failing to plead specific details of Talabs in the plaint. The core legal questions were whether a pre-emption plaint must explicitly contain the exact date, time, place, and names of witnesses regarding Talab-i-Muwathibat, and whether the High Court possessed revisional jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of fact on the fulfillment of Talabs. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. It held that pleadings need only contain material facts rather than evidence or names of witnesses, and pre-emption suits are no exception. Defendants seeking further details may apply for better particulars under Order VI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 absent material irregularity or misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit to specifically detail the date, time, place, and names of witnesses of Talab-i-Muwathibat in the plaint?
- Can a defendant who considers a plaint lacking in specific factual details seek remedy through an application for further and better particulars under Order VI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 set aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the fulfillment of Talabs in the absence of material irregularity?
- GUL MUHAMMAD Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL)2000 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-09-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus THE STATE2000 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 304/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside a sentence of life imprisonment. The petition suffered from a 47-day delay, which the Supreme Court condoned upon considering the reasons stated in the condonation application. Factual circumstances indicated that the incident occurred late at night at the petitioner's father's house, where the deceased, who allegedly had an illicit relationship with the petitioner's sister, had entered. The petitioner's counsel relied on settled Supreme Court precedents regarding similar factual scenarios involving provocation and family honor to challenge the appropriateness of the conviction and the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine and determine the question concerning the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner, and issued notice regarding the petitioner's application for bail.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned on sufficient cause shown in the condonation application?
- Whether leave to appeal may be granted to examine the proper quantum of sentence awarded under Section 304/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in circumstances involving family honor or illicit relations?
- IQBAL ZAFAR JHAGRA Versus KHALILUR REHMAN2000 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns election petitions challenging the election of two Senators, Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and Anwar Kamal Khan, to seats reserved for "Technocrats" and "Professionals." The Election Tribunal declared their elections void, prompting appeals. The core legal questions involved the validity of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 (P.O. 5) post-Constitution revival, the applicability of P.O. 5's definitions of "Technocrat" and "Professional" to Senate elections, and the scope of the Election Tribunal's jurisdiction to review nomination papers previously accepted by the Chief Election Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that P.O. 5 remains valid law under Article 270-A of the Constitution and its definitions govern Senate eligibility. The Court found Iqbal Zafar Jhagra qualified as a "Professional" based on his engineering credentials and experience, but upheld the disqualification of Anwar Kamal Khan for failing to establish professional practice. The Court affirmed that an Election Tribunal's jurisdiction to try election petitions is plenary and not barred by the Chief Election Commissioner's summary nomination decisions. Finally, the Court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to declare runners-up elected, as the candidates' disqualifications were not "notorious" at the time of polling.
Questions settled- Is the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, valid law following the revival of the Constitution of 1973?
- Does the definition of 'Technocrat' and 'Professional' in the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, apply to Senate elections?
- Can an Election Tribunal review the validity of a candidate's nomination after the Chief Election Commissioner has already accepted it?
- Should a runner-up candidate be declared elected when the successful candidate's disqualification was not notorious at the time of polling?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus FAZAL DAD2000 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-29Read full judgment →
- SHAHID ORAKZAI Versus PAKISTAN MUSLIM LEAGE (NAWAZ GROUP)2000 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application challenging the acquittal of respondents in contempt proceedings regarding an incident of rowdyism within the Supreme Court premises. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of an appeal against an acquittal in contempt cases and whether the strict rules of criminal procedure apply to such proceedings. The Supreme Court held that contempt proceedings are sui generis, partaking of elements of both civil and criminal proceedings but constituting neither; therefore, they are not bound by the strict technicalities of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor is the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable. The Court affirmed its inherent jurisdiction to exercise suo motu review to correct patent errors and ensure complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal, finding that the respondents had failed to discharge the onus of proving their innocence, and convicted them for contempt of court. The judgment establishes that contempt proceedings require a distinct procedural approach focused on the dignity of the Court rather than rigid criminal law standards.
Questions settled- Are contempt of court proceedings considered criminal proceedings strictly governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the Supreme Court have the inherent power to exercise suo motu review to correct a miscarriage of justice in contempt cases?
- Is the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to contempt of court proceedings?
- Can an unqualified apology be accepted in contempt proceedings if it is conditional or offered at the fag-end of the trial?
- NASEER AHMED Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, whereby the petitioner's criminal appeal was dismissed and the reference for confirmation of his death sentence was accepted. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment on the grounds of a sudden quarrel or mitigating circumstances, and whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, weapon recovery, and matching ballistic reports, established the petitioner's guilt for premeditated murder rather than a sudden fight. The Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, laying down that where an accused leaves the scene of an initial minor altercation, arms himself, and returns shortly after to commit a fatal attack, the act is premeditated, and lesser sentences based on sudden provocation are unwarranted.
Questions settled- Whether an incident arising after a brief interval following an initial minor quarrel can be categorized as a sudden fight warranting mitigation of sentence?
- Can related or friendly eye-witnesses be relied upon when their testimony is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
- Does the failure of an accused to prove injuries sustained during the occurrence negate the prosecution's case?
- Whether the sentence of death should be altered to imprisonment for life when premeditation and intention to kill are established?
- ROSHAN AKHTAR Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA2000 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal question revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to a lesser sentence under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the plea of grave and sudden provocation arising from 'Ghairat' (compromising position of the deceased with another person), as stated in his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that since the prosecution had proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recoveries, the exculpatory part of the appellant's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could not be accepted in isolation. The Court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence is trustworthy and stands independently, an accused's statement under section 342 cannot be selectively accepted in totality unless the prosecution case is rejected in its entirety. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the statement of an accused recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be accepted in totality when the prosecution evidence stands proved beyond a shadow of doubt?
- Can a lesser sentence be awarded under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on an unproven plea of grave and sudden provocation raised by the accused?
- Does the acceptance of a mitigating circumstance by the trial court preclude the appellate court from upholding a sentence of imprisonment for life?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a nine-year-old child, Hakim Ali. The core legal questions centered on whether a conviction for murder could be sustained solely on the basis of 'last seen' evidence, and whether sufficient corroborative material existed to link the appellant to the crime. The Supreme Court held that while last seen evidence is a weak type of testimony requiring corroboration, the prosecution successfully established guilt through trustworthy last seen evidence, the recovery of the deceased's dead body at the exclusive pointation of the appellant from a hidden spot, supporting medical evidence showing strangulation and drowning, and the failure of the appellant to provide a plausible explanation under Article 21 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The key principle laid down is that last seen evidence, when corroborated by incriminating circumstances such as a recovery of a dead body at the accused's exclusive pointation and close proximity of time, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of last seen evidence?
- What corroborative material is required to make last seen evidence legally sufficient to support a capital conviction?
- Does the recovery of a dead body at the exclusive pointation of the accused furnish sufficient corroboration to last seen testimony?
- What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession made before a local community figure under potential inducement?
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN2000 SCMR 1734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by Chairman WAPDA challenges the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent employee's appeal and declared him entitled to BS-17 from the date of his promotion as Revenue Officer. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate a service appeal filed by an employee of WAPDA, or whether jurisdiction vested exclusively in the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that by operation of law, including Article 12(1)(c) of the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970 and section 17(1-B) of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, the respondent had ceased to be an employee of the Punjab Government and had become an employee of WAPDA, making him amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal rather than the Provincial Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Federal Service Tribunal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a service appeal filed by an employee of WAPDA?
- Does an employee transferred en bloc from the Electricity Department of Punjab to WAPDA remain a provincial government employee on deputation?
- Whether service under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority is deemed to be service of Pakistan for the purposes of service tribunals?
- BAZ MUHAMMAD Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under sections 324, 337(F)(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 4,00,000 as Arsh for causing injuries resulting in the permanent paralysis of the victim's lower body. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the Balochistan High Court, which maintained the trial court's decision. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant did not contest the conviction or imprisonment but disputed the quantum of Arsh, arguing it was not calculated in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, which confirmed the victim's permanent paralysis and loss of lower body function. Applying section 337-R of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court held that the compensation was correctly determined given the severity of the incapacitation. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the awarded Arsh was legally justified based on the nature of the injuries sustained.
Questions settled- Is the Arsh for causing permanent paralysis of the lower body correctly calculated as equivalent to the value of Diyat?
- Does the loss of lower body function due to injuries justify the imposition of full Diyat as Arsh under section 337-R of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who admitted to the killings, acted under grave and sudden provocation, thereby warranting a mitigation of the death sentence. The prosecution alleged the murders were motivated by the appellant's illicit relations with one of the deceased, while the appellant contended he killed the victims after discovering them in an objectionable position. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that while the prosecution's motive theory was plausible, the appellant's consistent plea of grave and sudden provocation, supported by the circumstances of the attack, created a reasonable probability that his version might be true. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case and the defence's plea of grave and sudden provocation are examined in juxtaposition, and the latter carries a reasonable probability of truth, the court may mitigate the sentence in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the accused consistently pleads grave and sudden provocation?
- Does the existence of a reasonable probability regarding the defence's version of events justify the mitigation of a capital sentence?
- Is the court required to consider the defence's plea of grave and sudden provocation even in the absence of substantial independent evidence, if the accused's admission and surrounding circumstances support it?
- KHOOSHAMONAI TRIBE OF SAMAGOLE, TEHSIL MORKEH, DISTRICT CHITRAL Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.2000 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a decision of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition regarding a land and water dispute in District Chitral. The appellants claimed ownership of disputed land and water channels based on historical orders of the Mehtars, while the respondents asserted a prior compromise. The legal questions before the Supreme Court involved whether the dispute should have been resolved under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 rather than through 'Riwaj' (custom) before the Judicial Council, and whether the appellants were precluded from challenging jurisdiction after acquiescing to the Riwaj proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Paragraph 17 of the Regulation, pending matters continued under the prior framework unless all parties agreed to adopt the Regulation. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact could not be re-agitated in writ jurisdiction and that while consent cannot confer jurisdiction, the past determinations under Riwaj left the appellants with no right to the claimed relief.
Questions settled- Can a party who failed to challenge the reference of a matter to a Riwaj forum subsequently object to its jurisdiction under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975?
- Does Paragraph 17 of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation 1975 allow pending cases to continue under the existing system unless all parties agree otherwise?
- Can controversial and disputed questions of fact be determined in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- AZIZ ULLAH KHAN Versus GUL.MUHAMMAD KHAN2000 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
- IRFAN ALI Versus ANWAR HAMEED2000 SCMR 1624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-03-20Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus DULLA2000 SCMR 1588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, a Patwari, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification regarding the sanctioning of water for land. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction, based primarily on the testimony of the complainant and his relatives without independent corroboration, was sustainable, particularly given allegations of enmity. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence, noting the arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the potential for false implication due to personal vendettas. Consequently, the Court suspended the petitioner's sentence, directing his release on bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal. The principle established is that where a conviction rests solely on interested testimony, the appellate court may grant leave to appeal to re-examine the sufficiency and reliability of such evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for corruption be sustained solely on the basis of the complainant's testimony without independent corroboration?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to reappraise evidence in a criminal conviction case upon granting leave to appeal?
- Is the suspension of a sentence permissible pending the final disposal of an appeal where leave to appeal has been granted?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus KANEEZ FATIMA2000 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dissolved a marriage through Khula' despite the husband's opposition. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the jurisdiction to grant Khula' without the husband's consent, particularly where the wife expresses deep-seated hatred and an inability to live within the limits prescribed by God. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that marriage under Islamic law is a civil contract rather than a sacrament, and it is not a 'holy deadlock.' Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that where there is extreme discord and the court is satisfied that the spouses cannot live together in harmony, it has the authority to order separation via Khula' even if the husband does not consent. The principle laid down is that the right to Khula' is a controlled right exercisable by the court when it concludes that the parties' continued union is untenable under the limits ordained by God.
Questions settled- Can a court dissolve a marriage on the basis of Khula' without the husband's consent?
- Is marriage under Islamic law considered a sacrament or a civil contract?
- Under what circumstances can a court order separation via Khula'?
- Can the High Court interfere in matrimonial disputes to dissolve a marriage if there is no hope for reconciliation?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2000 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that affirmed the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for acid throwing, which resulted in the death of one victim and severe permanent disfigurement of others. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts, based on ocular evidence and the recovery of incriminating articles, were legally sound despite the defense's claims of false implication and evidentiary inconsistencies. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution provided consistent and convincing evidence, including the identification of the petitioner by natural witnesses in the light of a lantern and the establishment of a clear motive. The Court found no misreading of evidence and rejected the defense's arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses and the alleged delay in recording statements. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and the death sentence, emphasizing the brutal and callous nature of the crime, and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court can be disturbed in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the delay in recording the statement of an injured witness necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is the identification of an accused by natural witnesses in the light of a lantern sufficient to sustain a conviction?
- LIAQAT ALI Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that he killed the deceased upon finding him in a compromising position with his daughter, claiming a right of self-defence under Islamic Injunctions and relying on precedent. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Court held that a plea of self-defence raised by an accused is a defence plea to be properly evaluated and decided by the trial court during trial, and cannot be considered at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the grant or refusal of bail by the High Court is a discretionary matter which the Supreme Court will not interfere with lightly unless a clear legal infirmity is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defence be considered by the court at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary order granting or refusing bail?
- ABDUL MAJID Versus MUHAMMAD ALI SHAMIM2000 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- HASSAN AKHTAR KIRMANI Versus CHAIRMAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND NARCOTICS CONTROL2000 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arises from the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant, a Field Investigating Officer, was dismissed from service following departmental proceedings after a raid discovered unaccounted-for quantities of Charas and heroin in his cupboard. The core legal questions related to whether the departmental inquiry suffered from procedural defects resulting in a miscarriage of justice and whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. The Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with applicable rules, that procedural formalities and personal hearings were duly observed, and that no mala fides were established against the raiding party. The Court affirmed the dismissal, laying down that failure to properly account for case property such as narcotics found in an official's possession constitutes valid grounds for disciplinary action and dismissal from service when established through a regular inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a public servant to account for case property consisting of narcotics found in his custody constitutes valid ground for dismissal from service?
- Can a departmental inquiry be vitiated merely on the ground that a raid was conducted during the absence of the accused official?
- Whether the penalty of dismissal from service for possessing unaccounted-for narcotics is disproportionate?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JARANWALA2000 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the dismissal of a Patwari from service for alleged misconduct and fraud regarding the entry of a land mutation. The core legal question was whether the appellant, by entering the mutation based on a transfer order, acted with mala fide intent or in dereliction of duty, thereby justifying disciplinary action. The Supreme Court held that the appellant acted in strict compliance with his mandatory statutory duty under Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967. The Court observed that the appellant had made a cautionary note in the record, which demonstrated bona fide conduct rather than fraud. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with back benefits. The key principle laid down is that a public servant performing a mandatory statutory duty in good faith, including making necessary entries in official records as required by law, cannot be penalized for misconduct, particularly when the action is accompanied by appropriate cautionary notes to alert superior authorities.
Questions settled- Does a Patwari act with misconduct when entering a mutation of land in compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Can a public servant be dismissed for misconduct when their actions were performed in good faith and in accordance with statutory duties?
- Is a single instance of alleged incorrect behavior sufficient to establish a charge of extreme inefficiency amounting to misconduct?
- KHALID PERVEZ Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION2000 SCMR 1366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving causing qatl-e-khata, while reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to four years and maintaining the payment of Diyat alongside the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of evidence regarding rash and negligent driving by the petitioner on the date of the occurrence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence on record concerning the petitioner's manner of driving. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will review the appraisal of evidence by the High Court in criminal matters involving convictions for accidental death to ensure proper appreciation of the facts establishing rashness or negligence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has properly appraised the evidence on record with a view to determining the question of rash and negligent driving?
- Is a petitioner convicted under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2000 SCMR 1297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the inter se seniority of civil servants serving as Assistants in the Naval Headquarters. The core legal questions involve whether the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, possess retrospective application to seniority determinations made in 1985, and whether seniority lists, which remained unchallenged for over a decade, can be reopened. The Tribunal had set aside the seniority roll, applying the 1993 Rules. The Supreme Court, in granting leave to appeal, observed that previous jurisprudence establishes the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, as prospective in nature, superseding prior practices. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the necessity of examining whether the failure to challenge earlier seniority lists rendered the matter a past and closed transaction, thereby barring subsequent appeals on the grounds of limitation. The Court granted leave to examine these contentions and ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final hearing of the appeals.
Questions settled- Are the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, retrospective in operation?
- Does the publication of a new seniority list create a fresh cause of action for a civil servant to challenge seniority?
- Can a seniority list remain open to challenge after the lapse of twelve years?
- AKHTAR QURESHI Versus NISAR AHMAD2000 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh whereby an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlady on the ground of personal bona fide requirement was reversed. The appellant, an unmarried lady, sought eviction of the respondent-tenant from her flat to live independently upon her impending marriage, citing strained relations living with her brother's family. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction, but the High Court dismissed it, holding the claim lacked good faith due to co-ownership in another property. The Supreme Court examined whether the desire of an unmarried woman to live independently in her own flat upon marriage constitutes a bona fide requirement. Holding that co-ownership in another joint family house does not debar an owner from seeking eviction of her exclusive property for personal matrimonial use, the Court ruled that an assertion of personal need, consistent with pleadings and unshaken in cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order was restored.
Questions settled- Whether the desire of an unmarried woman to live independently in her own flat upon her marriage constitutes a bona fide personal requirement to evict a tenant?
- Does co-ownership in another joint family house debar a landlady from seeking the eviction of her exclusively owned property?
- When should an assertion of personal use by a landlord or landlady be accepted as bona fide by the Rent Controller?
- TABASSAM NAZIR Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD2000 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration regarding inheritance rights, which the lower courts dismissed as time-barred and frivolous, relying on previous litigation and revenue records. The core legal question was whether a trial court may summarily reject a plaint based on external evidence or defense material rather than solely on the averments within the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by resolving complex factual disputes, such as limitation and inheritance claims, at an interim stage without a full trial. The Court emphasized that the initial onus to prove fraud lies on the plaintiff and that such matters require the production of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection of the plaint, and remanded the case to the trial court for framing issues and conducting a full trial. The principle established is that disputed questions of fact regarding limitation and inheritance must be determined through evidence rather than summary dismissal.
Questions settled- Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on evidence produced by the defendant?
- Is a suit involving complex questions of limitation and inheritance suitable for summary dismissal under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the initial onus of proving fraud in a civil suit lie on the plaintiff?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF MALIK Versus WAPDA2000 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition concerning the entitlement of the petitioner to a revised house rent ceiling of Rs. 4,920 from WAPDA, having previously hired a house at Rs. 4,100. The Service Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding immediate applicability, observing that the increase would apply after the expiry of the existing lease deed on 31-1-1997. The petitioner contended that WAPDA failed to pay the enhanced rent from the said date. The core legal question involved the enforcement of the Tribunal's direction regarding the effective date of the enhanced house rent ceiling. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that WAPDA was bound to pay the enhanced rent effective from 31-1-1997 as directed by the Tribunal, rejecting WAPDA's excuse that the pendency of the petition prevented payment. The Court accordingly directed WAPDA to clear the payment within three weeks, laying down the principle that adjudicated financial benefits under a lease and rent ceiling revision must be disbursed in accordance with the binding timelines of the forum.
Questions settled- Whether an employee is entitled to a revised house rent ceiling upon the expiry of an existing lease deed?
- Can an authority withhold enhanced rent payments due under a Tribunal's order on the ground of a pending petition before the Supreme Court?
- AKTHAR HUSSAIN Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION2000 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal upholding his dismissal from the post of Revenue Patwari. The petitioner had been dismissed on the ground that he was a previously dismissed employee of the Lahore Development Authority and had concealed this fact when applying for appointment. The core legal question was whether a probationer dismissed for misconduct involving concealment of material facts is entitled to a formal inquiry and show-cause notice under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's conduct in suppressing a material fact disentitled him to discretionary relief, distinguishing the case from precedents requiring inquiry for temporary or probationary employees dismissed for misconduct, and further noted that no question of law of public importance arose. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a probationer dismissed from service for concealing a previous dismissal is entitled to a formal inquiry and show-cause notice?
- Does the suppression of a material fact at the time of seeking fresh government employment disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief from the court?
- Whether a petition arising from an individual grievance involving the dismissal of a public servant raises a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- KISHWAR ALAM Versus MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT2000 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal where the Supreme Court had orally announced an order granting leave to appeal. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the office that another learned Bench of the Court had previously declined leave against the order of the Service Tribunal under similar circumstances on the merits, a fact that was omitted by the counsel for the parties during the hearing. Consequently, the Court recalled its orally pronounced leave granting order and directed the matter to be fixed for rehearing before the Court according to the roster. The core legal question involved the propriety of recalling an orally announced leave granting order when prior contradictory binding precedents of the same Court on identical matters were not brought to the attention of the bench at the time of the hearing. The Court held that the order granting leave must be recalled for a rehearing in light of the prior consistent dismissals in similar circumstances.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court recall an orally announced leave granting order if prior inconsistent or consistent binding decisions of coordinate benches were not brought to its notice during the hearing?
- What is the procedure when counsel fail to apprise the Court of earlier judgments passed in similar circumstances by another bench?
- SHAHID KAMAL Versus STATE2000 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the petitioner's appeal challenging his dismissal from service as a Junior Clerk was dismissed, but his punishment was converted from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The core legal question involved the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner for unauthorized absence from duty and fraudulent medical leave, compounded by his subsequent arrest in a criminal case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the willful absence of the petitioner from service stood proved, and no substantial question of law warranting interference arose, especially as the criminal case against him was merely filed and he had not been honorably acquitted. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the modified penalty of compulsory retirement.
Questions settled- Whether unauthorized absence from service and obtaining unverified medical leave constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action and dismissal from service?
- Does the mere filing or closing of a criminal case due to non-production of witnesses amount to an honorable acquittal or exoneration in departmental proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary matters when no substantial question of law is involved?
- LAHORE HIGH COURT Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS2000 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions filed by the Lahore High Court against judgments passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. The respondent, a Civil Judge, had successfully challenged adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for specific periods in 1993 and 1994 before the Tribunal. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court involve the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with adverse remarks recorded by an Inspection Judge and the Administrative Committee of the High Court. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the Tribunal's decision conflicts with established Supreme Court precedents regarding the recording of ACRs and whether it was appropriate for a Tribunal to interfere with a decision rendered by an Administrative Committee comprising seven High Court Judges, including the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these jurisdictional and procedural issues. Pending final adjudication, the operation of the impugned judgment was suspended, and the matter was referred for the constitution of a larger Bench of at least five Judges to address the significant questions of law raised regarding the Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports of a Civil Judge by the Administrative Committee of the High Court?
- Does the interference by a Service Tribunal with a decision made by an Administrative Committee of the High Court violate established judicial guidelines regarding ACR recording?
- Is it legally permissible for a Tribunal to set aside adverse remarks recorded by an Inspection Judge in the circumstances of the case?
- BASHIR BEGUM Versus SAGDAR ALI2000 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondent of murder charges. The case originated from an incident involving a murder and murderous assaults during which six accused were charged. The trial court convicted the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, while acquitting the other five co-accused. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent, holding that the interested nature of the injured eye-witnesses and the contradictions in their testimony required independent corroboration, which was lacking. The Supreme Court examined the appeal against acquittal, noting that the ocular testimony had been partially rejected regarding the co-accused and that the reasons provided by the High Court for the respondent's acquittal were neither fallacious nor arbitrary. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt where prosecution evidence lacks necessary corroboration in cases involving previous ill-feeling and interested witnesses. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in acquitting an accused when the ocular testimony of injured eye-witnesses lacks independent corroboration in the presence of admitted enmity?
- Does the partial rejection of prosecution evidence against co-accused erode the probative value of the ocular account regarding the remaining accused?
- When is corroboration of interested witnesses deemed legally necessary in a criminal trial under Pakistan penal law?
- JAME'S CONSTRUCTION CO.(PVT) LTD Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB2000 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-11-24Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus IFTIKHAR-UD-DIN2000 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Shariat Appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which declared sections 8, 9, 10, 14, and 21 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 to be repugnant to the injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah. The core legal questions revolved around whether these provisions violated Islamic principles by making the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board a judge in his own cause, barring the jurisdiction of civil courts, exempting trust property from legal processes, and failing to provide a right of appeal against the Chairman's decisions. The Supreme Court held that sections 8, 9, 10, 14, and 21 are not inherently repugnant to Islam, as the proceedings under the Act are inquisitorial rather than adversarial and deal with a special class of evacuee trust property requiring preservation. However, the Court held that the lack of a right of appeal against the Chairman's orders under section 8 violates the Islamic principles of administration of justice, and accordingly directed the appellant to amend the statute to provide a right of appeal to the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the conferment of powers on the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 violates the Islamic principle that no one should be a judge in his own cause?
- Are sections 9 and 14 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 repugnant to the injunctions of Islam for barring civil court jurisdiction and exempting trust pools from court processes?
- Does the absence of a right of appeal against an order passed by the Chairman under section 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 render the provision repugnant to Islamic principles of administration of justice?
- Whether proceedings held by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board for determining the status of evacuee trust properties are inquisitorial or adversarial in nature?
- ZAKIRULLAH KHAN Versus FAIZULLAH KHAN1999 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1999 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an acquittal order by the Federal Shariat Court regarding an allegation of Zina. The appellant husband had accused his wife of Zina, leading to an initial conviction by the trial court under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which was subsequently overturned. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred by failing to invoke the procedure of Li'an when the husband could not produce four eye-witnesses to prove the charge. The Supreme Court held that under Islamic injunctions and Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, the procedure of Li'an is mandatory when a husband accuses his wife of Zina without sufficient witnesses. The Court established that courts must inform the wife of her right to demand Li'an. Upon performing the Li'an procedure, the Court dissolved the marriage between the spouses and terminated the criminal proceedings for Zina, ruling that the Li'an procedure supersedes the criminal trial for Zina in such circumstances.
Questions settled- What is the mandatory procedure when a husband accuses his wife of Zina without producing four eye-witnesses?
- Does the procedure of Li'an result in the dissolution of marriage between the spouses?
- Is a wife entitled to be informed of her right to demand the procedure of Li'an when accused of Zina by her husband?
- Can criminal proceedings for Zina continue after the completion of the Li'an procedure?
- REHMAT ALI Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN1999 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus RASUL BIBI1999 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
- RAZA KHAN Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR1999 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a Constitution Petition by the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the partition of land conducted under the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The appellants challenged the partition proceedings, alleging they were not served with notice and were condemned unheard. The core legal question was whether the appellants, claiming to be co-owners, suffered actual prejudice from the ex parte partition proceedings and whether the High Court erred in dismissing their petition in limine. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish their status as co-owners of the land in question or demonstrate any substantial injustice or prejudice resulting from the partition. The Court affirmed that procedural irregularities do not vitiate proceedings unless they result in substantial injustice. Furthermore, the Court held that disputes regarding ownership rights, particularly where mutations were sanctioned in the cultivation column rather than the ownership column, are more appropriately resolved by a competent Civil Court rather than through revenue partition proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a procedural irregularity in partition proceedings under the Land Revenue Act 1967 automatically vitiate the proceedings?
- Can a party claim prejudice in partition proceedings without establishing their status as a co-owner of the land in dispute?
- Is a dispute regarding ownership rights, where mutations are sanctioned in the cultivation column, appropriately resolved by a Revenue Officer or a Civil Court?
- UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN , M.A. Zaidi1999 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining a decree for damages in favor of Respondent No. 1 against the appellant bank and its officers on account of wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution. The core legal questions involved whether a bank employee dismissed following a domestic inquiry for embezzlement is entitled to damages, and whether a suit for malicious prosecution is sustainable without proof of malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the domestic inquiry was validly conducted as the employee failed to participate despite ample opportunity and that the dismissal was lawful, precluding any claim for damages for wrongful dismissal. Furthermore, the Court held that the employee failed to prove malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause for the lodging of the First Information Report, both of which are mandatory ingredients of a suit for malicious prosecution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an employee dismissed from service following a valid domestic inquiry can claim damages for wrongful dismissal?
- What are the essential ingredients required to sustain a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
- Does the mere discharge of an accused in a criminal case suffice to prove malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause?
- Can a court of appeal substitute its own conclusion on the merits for the findings of a domestic inquiry without finding a jurisdictional defect?
- MUHAMMAD GUL Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1999 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals regarding the exercise of the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The core legal question was the interpretation of the phrase "as soon as possible" in Section 13(3) of the Act, specifically whether a ten-day delay between the Talab-i-Mawathibat (first demand) and the Talab-i-Ishhad (second demand) invalidated the pre-emption claim. The appellant contended that the delay defeated the right, citing previous case law suggesting strict, immediate compliance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the statutory requirement to perform Talab-i-Ishhad "as soon as possible" does not mandate instantaneous action regardless of circumstances. The Court clarified that while the notice must be sent within the outer limit of two weeks, the phrase does not require the pre-emptor to act without a moment's delay. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent's notice, sent within ten days, constituted substantial compliance with the law, thereby affirming the lower courts' decisions. This judgment establishes that the "as soon as possible" requirement is context-dependent rather than a rigid, immediate deadline.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'as soon as possible' in Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 require the notice of Talab-i-Ishhad to be sent instantaneously?
- Is a delay of ten days between Talab-i-Mawathibat and Talab-i-Ishhad fatal to a pre-emption claim under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- What are the essential legal requirements for a valid Talab-i-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- SAID SHAH Versus ABSARUDDIN1999 SCMR 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court decision remanding a redemption suit, with the appellant arguing that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, and that the claim was time-barred. The core legal questions were whether the 1964 Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in redemption matters and whether the suit was within the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the 1964 Act offers a summary, additional remedy for specific mortgage types but does not exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to adjudicate regular redemption suits under the Transfer of Property Act. The Court clarified that the bar under Section 17 of the Act applies only when a mortgage has been validly declared extinguished under Chapter III, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the suit was within the limitation period, citing valid acknowledgments. The principle laid down is that the 1964 Act does not oust Civil Court jurisdiction for redemption suits unless the specific conditions of Chapter III are met and a formal declaration of extinguishment has been issued.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try regular suits for redemption of mortgages?
- Under what circumstances does Section 17 of the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts?
- Can a suit for redemption be maintained in a Civil Court if the mortgage has not been declared extinguished under Chapter III of the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE1999 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the crime, specifically the element of provocation. The prosecution alleged the appellant killed the deceased following a prior altercation over water usage, during which the deceased had beaten the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the prior physical altercation and the resulting provocation constituted a significant mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, imposing a fine of Rs. 100,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where a murder is committed as a retaliatory act following a prior physical altercation and provocation, such circumstances may justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a prior physical altercation and provocation serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus STATE1999 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which had sentenced him to death based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts correctly appraised the evidence and whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of a presidential amnesty order dated 7th December 1988, which commuted death sentences awarded prior to that date. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent and corroborated by other evidence. However, applying the principle established in Eid Muhammad and others v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 14), the Court held that the amnesty benefit extends to convicts awaiting confirmation of their death sentences by the High Court. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while retaining the fine and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does a presidential amnesty order commuting death sentences apply to a convict whose sentence has not yet been confirmed by the High Court?
- Is a conviction for murder sustainable based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery?
- Can the Supreme Court commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life based on a general amnesty order issued after the trial court's judgment?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1999 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife (Qatl-i-Amd). The core legal question was whether the death sentence could be maintained when the offender is not liable to Qisas under Section 306, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically because the victim's Wali is a direct descendant of the offender. The Supreme Court held that the trial and appellate courts erred in imposing the death penalty, as the existence of a Wali who is a direct descendant of the offender renders the offence not liable to Qisas under Section 306(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence. The principle laid down is that where Qatl-i-Amd is not liable to Qisas under Section 306, the offender is liable to Diyat, and the Court may, under Section 308(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, impose additional punishment of imprisonment up to fourteen years as Ta'zir, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Is an offender liable to Qisas for Qatl-i-Amd when a Wali of the victim is a direct descendant of the offender?
- What is the appropriate punishment for Qatl-i-Amd when the offence is not liable to Qisas under Section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a court impose imprisonment as Ta'zir in addition to Diyat for Qatl-i-Amd?
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus ABDULLAH1999 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH Versus GHULAM NABI1999 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a property dispute where the trial court initially dismissed the appellants' suit. Following an appeal, the Majlis-e-Shoora, by consent of the parties, remanded the case for a de novo trial due to allegations of improper recording of witness statements. Upon retrial, the suit was decreed. However, the High Court in revision set aside this decree, relying on evidence recorded prior to the remand order. The core legal question was whether a High Court, in revision, is justified in considering evidence recorded before a de novo trial order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law by considering the pre-remand evidence. The Court affirmed that a de novo trial implies trying a matter anew as if it had not been heard before. Consequently, the previous evidence is excluded. The Court established that while the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not explicitly define de novo trials, appellate courts possess the inherent power to order such proceedings in the interest of justice, particularly when parties have consented to the remand order.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of a remand order for a de novo trial on previously recorded evidence?
- Does an appellate court have the power to order a de novo trial under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can parties who consent to a de novo trial later challenge the appellate court's authority to order such a trial?
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB Versus ANJUMAN-E-ISLAMIA (REGD.)1999 SCMR 2918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1999 SCMR 2851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing hurt. The prosecution case was that the appellant inflicted fatal knife blows to the deceased due to a land dispute. The Supreme Court granted leave solely to examine the questions of sentence, specifically regarding whether the motive was established and whether the appellant's young age of eighteen years warranted a lesser sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the motive concerning the land dispute. However, considering the appellant's tender age of eighteen years at the time of the offence and the absence of particularly heinous, premeditated, or brutal circumstances, the Court held that young age serves as a mitigating factor justifying the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive can be considered as a relevant factor to award a lesser penalty?
- Can the tender age of an accused at the time of the commission of an offence be considered as a mitigating factor for the reduction of a sentence from death to imprisonment for life?
- Does the rule granting the benefit of tender age apply as an absolute rule in every case irrespective of the circumstances?
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1999 SCMR 2795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1999 SCMR 2752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and capital sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Ashraf, for the murder of Mehr Khan. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular and chance witness testimony, the proof of motive, and whether verbal remarks by the deceased constituted sufficient provocation to reduce the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular evidence, prompt lodging of the F.I.R., and established motive, and that calling the appellant an offensive name after he entered the house fully armed did not constitute grave and sudden provocation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence. The key principle laid down is that where an accused enters premises armed and with a pre-existing motive to kill, being rebuked by the victim does not amount to mitigating provocation.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon if corroborated by surrounding circumstances and other credible evidence?
- Does a victim reprimanding an intruder amount to sufficient grave and sudden provocation to mitigate a murder charge?
- Whether a capital sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment when the prosecution has successfully established the motive and ocular account?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1999 SCMR 2722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Noor Muhammad, for the double murder of two young women. The core legal question examined was the propriety of the death sentence in light of the circumstances, specifically whether a weak motive or alleged undue influence by the appellant's father constituted mitigating circumstances warranting a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no universal rule that a weak or unproved motive or acting under the influence of an elder automatically entitles a convict to a lesser sentence than death. The Court laid down that the normal sentence for murder is death, to be awarded as a matter of course unless mitigating circumstances exist, and the question of sentence must be evaluated based on the specific facts of each case, particularly considering the brutality of the crime and the lack of provocation.
Questions settled- Whether a weak or unproved motive entitles a convict to a lesser sentence than death in a murder case?
- Does a convict acting under the influence of an elder member of the family have a right to claim a lesser sentence?
- What is the normal sentence for the offence of murder under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
- INAYATULLAH KHAN Versus OBAIDULLAH KHAN1999 SCMR 2702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK IRFANI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1999 SCMR 2690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was directed against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court dismissing a Shariat petition which challenged sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Law Reports Act 1875 along with amendments. The appellant contended that these provisions restricted the publication of court judgments, violating Islamic injunctions and the public's right to know court decisions. The Supreme Court examined the appeal and held that the impugned law does not prohibit the publication of judgments that enunciate a principle of law, decide a question of first impression, or explain/reverse previous decisions, but merely restricts the indiscriminate publication of routine judgments based solely on facts without fresh legal holdings. The Court ruled that such restrictions are reasonable, prevent unnecessary expenses, protect individuals' privacy in private disputes, and are not repugnant to the Holy Qur'an, the Sunnah, or constitutional principles. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the constitutionality of the provisions.
Questions settled- Whether sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Law Reports Act 1875 are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah?
- Does the restriction on publishing judgments that do not enunciate a principle of law violate the public's right to know the law?
- Whether judgments based purely on facts without establishing a fresh legal principle require mandatory public reporting?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1999 SCMR 2686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1999 SCMR 2652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court addresses the legality of the conviction, the imposition of Diyat and Ta'zir punishments, and the burden of proof regarding maturity in the case of a minor convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, a minor at the time of the offense, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment and Diyat after the court placed the burden on him to prove his lack of maturity under the second proviso to section 308. The High Court dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the prosecution seeks a Ta'zir punishment for a minor under the second proviso to section 308, the burden lies on the prosecution to affirmatively establish by evidence that the minor had attained sufficient maturity to realize the consequences of his act, distinguishing it from the negative formulation under section 83. The Court found the trial court's imposition of Diyat and Ta'zir illegal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and modified the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, ordering his immediate release.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof to show sufficient maturity under the second proviso to section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 lie on the minor accused or on the prosecution?
- Whether a minor convicted of Qatl-i-Amd can be punished with Ta'zir imprisonment without positive evidence establishing that he had attained sufficient maturity to realize the consequences of his act?
- Can Diyat be lawfully imposed when the conviction is under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than under Qisas?