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.

• FAZAL AHMAD Versus STATE1970 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF WEST PAKISTAN1970 SCMR 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-10Read full judgment →
• KAKA Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1970 SCMR 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-22Read full judgment →
• NUR MUHAMMAD Versus FALAK SHER1970 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-10
  murderacquittalocular evidenceinterested witnessesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's acquittal of respondents charged with murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, specifically the reliability of ocular witnesses and the alleged recovery of incriminating items, in the context of deep-seated, long-standing enmity between the parties. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant infirmities. The Court held that the existence of a compound wall at the scene created reasonable doubt regarding the witnesses' ability to observe the incident as claimed. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses, particularly when contradicted by physical evidence and the improbability of the deceased accompanying an enemy, must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist in prosecution evidence and the presence of a physical obstruction casts doubt on the eyewitnesses' visibility, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering an acquittal order unassailable in appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a compound wall at the scene of a crime, which obstructs the view of alleged eyewitnesses, provide sufficient grounds to doubt their testimony?
  • Should the evidence of interested witnesses be accepted without careful scrutiny in a criminal trial?
  • Is an acquittal order by the High Court liable to be set aside if the prosecution fails to resolve material contradictions in the testimony of its witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM ABBAS Versus ZAFAR ALI1970 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR Versus ZULFIQAR1970 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-10Read full judgment →
• LALA Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN1970 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-27Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, WEST PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus M. A. K. TARIN1970 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-10
  service terminationexcessive delegationsupervisory controltemporary employeeswrit jurisdictionshow cause noticestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Chairman of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation against a High Court judgment. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution, had set aside the termination of the respondents' services by the Chairman of the Thal Development Authority. The High Court held that the termination orders were improperly influenced by the Chairman of the Agricultural Development Corporation, that the supervisory control exercised under section 25 of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, constituted excessive delegation, and that the power to terminate employees was vested in the Authority itself, not the Chairman alone. The petitioner challenged these findings, arguing that the delegation was lawful, the Authority acted independently, the terminations were confirmed by the Authority, and that the respondents, as temporary employees, were not entitled to show-cause notices under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court, finding that the proper construction of the rules and section 25 of the Ordinance required further consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine these legal questions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the supervisory control granted under section 25 of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, constitute excessive delegation?
  • Is the power to terminate employees of the Thal Development Authority vested in the Authority as a body or in its Chairman alone?
  • Are temporary employees entitled to a show-cause notice under rule 10 of the Thal Development Act rules when their services are terminated?
  Read full judgment →
• FAIZUL HAQUE KHAN Versus ABDUL HAMID1970 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-26
  leave to appealmisreading of evidencesettlement propertyproperty transferadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had interfered with an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of disputed property. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in its decision by misreading and ignoring critical evidence. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the respondent's claim to the property was based solely on a receipt purportedly showing the submission of an NCS form, without any corroborating evidence such as register entries or official proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the High Court failed to consider evidence indicating that the respondent only took possession of the property in 1960 from a third party, Raz Mohammad, whom the petitioner was actively attempting to evict through legal proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court finds that the case warrants further examination to determine the validity of the High Court's interference with the administrative findings. Consequently, the Court grants leave to appeal, subject to the provision of security, to resolve the underlying dispute regarding property transfer and evidence evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner based on a potential misreading of evidence?
  • Is a receipt for an NCS form sufficient evidence to establish a claim for the transfer of disputed property in the absence of corroborating register entries?
  • Does the possession of property obtained from a third party during ongoing eviction proceedings affect the validity of a claim for property transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• GOURANGA MOHAN SIKDAR Versus CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORT1970 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-12-24
  speaking ordersummary dismissalwrit petitionimport licencerestitutionjudicial duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of East Pakistan summarily dismissing a writ petition with a single-line order stating there was no substance in it. The appellant had previously successfully challenged the illegal cancellation of his import registration certificate, but authorities subsequently refused to issue import licences for the intervening period. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a writ petition raising substantial questions of law without a reasoned, speaking order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply its mind properly and that judicial orders must be speaking orders containing reasons. The key principle laid down is that superior courts must record reasons and state the precise points raised and grounds for rejection, as decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can dismiss a writ petition raising substantial questions of law by a unreasoned single-sentence order?
  • Is a judicial order required to be a speaking order manifesting proper application of mind?
  • Whether decisions of the Supreme Court deciding a question of law are binding on all other courts in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALLAH Versus STATE1970 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-30
  murdercriminal appealappreciation of evidencefirst information reportocular testimonydeath sentencespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of one Amir Bakhsh under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, resulting in a sentence of death confirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the alleged shifting of the place of the incident by the prosecution, the correct translation of the First Information Report, and the credibility of eyewitnesses not named in the initial report. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence, that the translation of the FIR was properly corrected by the High Court judges acquainted with Sindhi, and that the absence of a witness's name from the FIR does not automatically discredit them when the incident occurred in broad daylight and was supported by unrelated and disinterested witnesses. The court established the principle that it does not, as a rule, undertake a re-appreciation of evidence already properly evaluated by the courts below upon correct principles, thereby dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a witness's name from the First Information Report necessarily discredit their subsequent testimony?
  • Will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appreciation of evidence that has been fully and correctly discussed by the courts below?
  • Does a discrepancy in the translation of an FIR regarding the place of the incident amount to an attempt by the prosecution to shift the place of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• WAZID MORAL Versus STATE1970 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-06-14
  private defensecross-casescriminal appealculpable homicideindependent assessment of evidenceriotingbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two cross-appeals arising from criminal proceedings involving a violent incident over a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in disposing of one criminal appeal based solely on the findings of a cross-case, and whether the accused acted in the exercise of the right of private defense. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to independently assess the evidence in each case, as every criminal matter must be decided on its own merits. The Court determined that the accused, Wazid Moral, initially acted in the lawful exercise of his right of private defense of property and person when attacked, but exceeded this right by inflicting a fatal injury. Consequently, his conviction was altered from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that a court cannot dispose of a criminal case merely by relying on the findings of a cross-case; it must conduct an independent evaluation of the evidence presented in that specific proceeding.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dispose of a criminal appeal based solely on the findings of a cross-case?
  • Does the right of private defense extend to causing death when the accused is defending their property and person?
  • Must a court independently assess the evidence in each criminal case regardless of the outcome of a related cross-case?
  Read full judgment →
• KARAMA Versus GHULAM MURTAZA1970 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD1970 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-21Read full judgment →
• AZAM BEG Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ, DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTRE I, LAHORE1970 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ ALI Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1970 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  review petitionsettlement schemefresh evidenceSupreme Courtwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking to review a previous order dated 17 June 1966, which had dismissed an earlier review application against the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal. The petitioners sought to challenge a decision of the High Court refusing a writ in a Settlement matter regarding a claim to land under the Settlement Scheme. The core legal question was whether fresh evidence, specifically a copy of a pedigree-table intended to prove connection to a propositus, could be received by the Supreme Court in a second review proceeding. The Court held that fresh evidence going to the truth or falsity of the original claim cannot be received by the Court in a second review, noting that the allotment in the petitioners' favour was vitiated by fraud and that such evidence must instead be presented to the proper Settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that appellate and review forums such as the Supreme Court will not entertain fresh evidentiary material regarding the merits of an original claim at the stage of a second review, leaving the party to pursue appropriate administrative or settlement forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can fresh evidence regarding a pedigree-table be received by the Supreme Court in a second review petition?
  • Where should a party seeking to rely on newly procured evidence in a land settlement matter place such evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ANSAR HUSSAIN Versus RASHIDA BEGUM1970 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-12-02
  settlement lawsevacuee propertycontradictory orderssuo motu reviewwrit petitionremandspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a property dispute under settlement laws where the petitioner and respondent both sought transfer of an evacuee property in Lahore. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred the property to the petitioner, treating it as indivisible. After a series of conflicting administrative appeals and revisions, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner passed two contradictory orders on separate dates regarding the revision petitions. The respondent challenged the final order via a writ petition under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958 before the High Court. The High Court set aside both contradictory orders and remanded the case for a fresh joint hearing. A Letters Patent Appeal against this decision was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in setting aside the inconsistent orders passed by the revisional authority. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in ensuring substantial justice by setting aside patently conflicting orders and ordering a rehearing, thereby refusing to grant special leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can set aside conflicting orders passed by a revisional authority on separate dates in the same matter?
  • Can an administrative authority exercise suo motu review to cure contradictory decisions resulting from separate hearings?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order remanding a case for a joint rehearing to prevent injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQ BANGASH Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT1970 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-13
  departmental inquirysuspension from servicewrit petitionco-operative departmentarrears of salarymaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Co-operative Department, challenged the legality of a departmental inquiry and his suspension from service through a writ petition dismissed by the High Court. Initially suspended following criminal allegations under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, he was dismissed after an inquiry initiated by a charge-sheet from the Deputy Registrar. On appeal, the Secretary to the Government set aside the dismissal because the Deputy Registrar was not competent to issue the charge-sheet, but permitted a fresh inquiry. A second charge-sheet was issued by the Registrar, and the petitioner's suspension was validated. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contested the legality of his suspension prior to its validation. The Supreme Court held that suspension is not a penalty and does not violate a vested legal right, and claims for unpaid salary during suspension cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The petition and leave to appeal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the legality of a suspension order and claims for unpaid salary during suspension be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
  • Does an order of suspension constitute a penalty or violate a legal right vesting in a suspended officer?
  • Whether fresh departmental proceedings can be initiated with a valid charge-sheet after earlier proceedings are set aside on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA1970 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-05
  election petitionmaterially affectedelectoral collegeirregularitiesspecial leave to appealpolling agentballot papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that declared void an Election Tribunal's order setting aside an election. The election for Electoral Unit No. 1615 was contested by the petitioner and the second respondent, with the latter declared the winner. The Election Tribunal had set aside the election based on two irregularities: the recovery of 12 excess ballot papers from female ballot boxes and the Presiding Officer's refusal to allow the petitioner's polling agent to act, permitting the petitioner's son to sign the result sheet instead. The core legal question was whether these irregularities were sufficient to set aside the election under the governing rules. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that under the Electoral College Rules, 1964, an election can only be set aside if the result was materially affected. The Court held that the irregularities cited did not materially affect the outcome, as the respondent maintained a sufficient majority even after excluding the excess votes, and no prejudice was proven regarding the polling agent's absence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election be set aside based on irregularities if those irregularities did not materially affect the result of the election?
  • Does the presence of excess ballot papers in a ballot box automatically invalidate an election result?
  • Is the unauthorized signing of a result sheet by a candidate's relative sufficient grounds to set aside an election?
  Read full judgment →
• FEROZE DIN Versus K. M. MUNIR1970 SCMR 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-07-07
  criminal procedureforged documentsprivate vengeancepublic interestdiscretionary powerevacuee propertyspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lodging a complaint against the respondents for using allegedly forged allotment orders during proceedings. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to initiate collateral criminal proceedings while the main dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee property was pending remand before the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal was a proper exercise of discretion, as prosecution under section 476 is not a matter of course and should not be permitted to be used as a tool for private vengeance or to hamper the main issue. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be anchored in public interest rather than private grudges, and appellate courts will not interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to initiate such inquiries unless exercised arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prosecution under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be launched as a matter of course for offences committed in judicial proceedings?
  • Is it appropriate to initiate collateral criminal proceedings that may hamper the main issue pending before an administrative authority?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to initiate criminal proceedings under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• AFILUDDIN BROS LTD. Versus PAKISTAN JUTE BALERS1970 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-06-19
  arbitration awardlegal misconductcommercial arbitrationcontractual disputearbitration rulesjudicial discretionex parte award
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged a High Court order refusing to interfere with a decree made in terms of an arbitration award concerning a contract for the sale of raw jute. The core legal question was whether the arbitrators committed 'legal misconduct' by failing to hold a formal hearing, notify the parties of a hearing date, or call for further evidence, thereby rendering the award invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no legal misconduct occurred. The Court defined 'legal misconduct' as a judicial error causing a miscarriage of justice. It established that where arbitration rules explicitly dispense with formal hearings and oral evidence, arbitrators are not obligated to hold such hearings unless they deem it necessary. Arbitrators act judicially by considering the written statements, rejoinders, and correspondence provided by the parties. They are not required to take evidence in every case; the necessity depends on the specific facts. Provided arbitrators do not act capriciously and possess sufficient material to adjudicate the dispute, the award remains valid and enforceable.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes 'legal misconduct' in the context of arbitration proceedings?
  • Are arbitrators required to hold a formal hearing or take oral evidence in every dispute?
  • Does an arbitration award made without a formal hearing or notice of a hearing date necessarily constitute legal misconduct?
  • To what extent must arbitrators rely on evidence when deciding a commercial dispute under specific arbitration rules?
  Read full judgment →
• NOVARTIS AG Versus UNION OF INDIA2013 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of India · 2013-04-01Read full judgment →
• SANCHIT BANSAL Versus JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB)2012 SCMR 1841 · Supreme Court of India · 2011-10-11Read full judgment →
• LEADING SEAMAN C.D. EDWARDS, CAPTAIN C.M.C. CREPEAU, GUNNER K.J.J. FONTAINE AND CAPTAIN M.J. IREDALE Versus HIS MAJESTY THE KING and CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION AND BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION2025 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Canada
  judicial independencemilitary justicecourts martialreasonable apprehension of biasconstitutional lawCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, challenged the constitutionality of the National Defence Act, arguing that the requirement for military judges to be military officers violates the right to an independent and impartial tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They contended that the dual status of judges as officers, and their subjection to the Code of Service Discipline, creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermines judicial independence. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the current legislative regime is constitutionally compliant. The Court affirmed that while military courts must respect Charter guarantees, they need not be identical to civilian courts. The Court held that the National Defence Act provides sufficient safeguards—including security of tenure, financial security, and administrative independence—to insulate military judges from the chain of command in their judicial functions. Consequently, the Court concluded that the military status of judges does not, in itself, violate the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence, as the system effectively balances military discipline with the imperative of a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory requirement that military judges be military officers violate the right to an independent and impartial tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
  • Are military judges, as officers, subject to sufficient safeguards to ensure their judicial independence from the military chain of command?
  • Does the subjection of military judges to the Code of Service Discipline create a reasonable apprehension of bias?
  • Is the military justice system required to be identical to the civilian criminal justice system to satisfy constitutional standards of judicial independence?
  Read full judgment →
• BELA KOSOIAN Versus SOCIÉTÉ DE TRANSPORT DE MONTRÉAL, VILLE DE LAVAL AND FABIO CAMACHO2020 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• MOHSEN SAADATI BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, SARA ZAREI Versus GRANT IAIN MOORHEAD, ABLE LEASING (2001) LTD. AND THI HAO HOANG2017 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• ZAFAR Versus State2008 SCMR 1270 · Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction · 2003-12-15
  ZinaHudood Ordinancereduction of sentencequantum of sentencecriminal appealFederal Shariat Courtrigorous imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court modifying the conviction and sentence of the appellant Zafar. The appellant was originally tried under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 10(3) of the said Ordinance, receiving a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and ten stripes, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon appeal, the Federal Shariat Court reduced the sentence to six years' rigorous imprisonment, set aside the sentence of whipping, and maintained the benefit of Section 382-B. The appellant further appealed to the Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, seeking a reduction in sentence. The core legal question concerned the quantum of sentence and whether further leniency was warranted given the nature of the crime. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant committed a grave crime, did not deserve leniency, and that the Federal Shariat Court had already taken a sufficiently lenient view. The Court laid down that appellate interference with a reduced sentence is unwarranted where the lower appellate court has appropriately exercised its discretion in a grave offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in reducing a sentence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 based on the circumstances of the case?
  • Does a convict committing a grave crime under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 deserve further leniency in sentencing from the Supreme Court?
  • Whether the sentence of whipping awarded under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be set aside by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• BEADICA 231 CC Versus TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE OREGON TRUST2020 SCMR 1722 · Constitutional Court of South Africa · 2020-06-17Read full judgment →
• ALI REHMAN Versus SOHAIL HASSAN QAISER, ADVOCATE2001 MLD 814 · 2000-11-17Read full judgment →
• KHURSHID ANWAR Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM2001 MLD 757 · 2000-10-18Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD SHAM KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN2001 MLD 178 · 2000-04-11Read full judgment →
• CHANDU LAL CHANDRAKER Versus1990 MLD 1419 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
• GURNEK SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB1990 MLD 1414 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-09-27Read full judgment →
• WAZIR CHAND Versus STATE OF HARYANA1990 MLD 1409 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• MAIKU Versus STATE OF U.P.1990 MLD 1402 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-09-29Read full judgment →
• MANGULI DEI Versus STATE OF ORISSA1990 MLD 1400 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
• STATE (DELHI ADMN) Versus JAGJIT SINGH1990 MLD 1394 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• PRITHI CHAND Versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH1990 MLD 1389 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• MAKHAN SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB1989 MLD 1567 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-07-27Read full judgment →
• STATE OF U.P. Versus KRISHNA GOPAL1989 MLD 1501 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-12Read full judgment →
• ANGURI Versus JIWAN DASS1989 MLD 1483 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabeer Khan Versus Zia-ul-Islam, ASI2025 MLD 1710 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-07-22
  petition for leave to appealreview petitionabuse of processfrivolous litigationimposition of costsanti corruptionprevention of corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a review petition in a case involving allegations of misconduct and physical torture against a police official. An FIR had been registered under Section 5(2) of the Azad Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 read with Section 109 of the Azad Penal Code. The High Court initially dismissed a revision petition based on an assertion that a final report (Ikhtatami) was submitted; however, an inquiry later revealed no such report existed. Consequently, a review petition was filed, which the High Court dismissed. Before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Director General Anti-Corruption confirmed that multiple investigations concluded the allegations were false and that petitioners failed to produce witnesses. During the hearing, petitioners offered an eleventh-hour pardon, leading the Court to find the litigation frivolous and an abuse of process. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 20,000.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eleventh-hour retraction or pardon by a petitioner after prolonged proceedings renders litigation frivolous and an abuse of process?
  • Whether leave to appeal will be granted against a High Court judgment where no arguable question of law or jurisdictional defect is identified?
  Read full judgment →
• Zameer Hussain Shah alias Zari Shah Versus The State through Advocate General Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad2025 MLD 1119 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-14
  suspension of sentencenarcotics offencebail pending appealspecial lawsstatutory interpretationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of a four-year sentence imposed for an offence under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The appellant, convicted for narcotics possession, sought bail pending appeal, citing medical grounds, procedural lapses in the prosecution's case, and the brevity of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the appellant demonstrated exceptional circumstances or statutory grounds sufficient to warrant the suspension of his sentence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish compelling reasons for bail. The Court affirmed that Section 426 does not grant an absolute right to bail upon conviction, particularly in narcotics cases governed by special laws. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statutory ground for bail based on the pendency of an appeal is only triggered when the appeal remains pending for more than one year, a condition not met in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of a short sentence automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is there an absolute right to bail upon conviction under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the statutory requirement regarding the pendency of an appeal for the grant of bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER ALAM Versus ABDUL RASHEED2023 MLD 1252 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2023-03-02
  superdaricase propertysecond revisionsuppression of material factsunclean handsinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which dismissed a revision petition regarding the interim custody (superdari) of a seized vehicle. A criminal case was registered under the Azad Penal Code, and the trial court released the subject vehicle on superdari. The appellant challenged the trial court's order by filing a revision petition before the Additional District Criminal Court, which was dismissed. Without disclosing this dismissal, the appellant filed a second revision petition before the High Court against the same trial court order. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that filing a second revision petition after the first had attained finality was impermissible. The Court observed that the appellant approached the forum with unclean hands and suppressed material facts to gain an unfair advantage, disentitling him to any discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party who suppresses the dismissal of an earlier revision petition entitled to discretionary relief in a subsequent revision proceeding?
  • Can a second revision petition be maintained before the High Court against a trial court's order after an earlier revision petition against the same order has attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• MUJAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI Versus REGISTRAR AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR SUPREME COURT2021 MLD 1946 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-07-16
  review petitionfinality of judgmentpast and closed transactioncivil servantdismissal from serviceSupreme Court Registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the order passed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir returning the appellant's repeated review application. The appellant, a former civil servant dismissed for misconduct, had previously had his writ petition accepted by the High Court, but that judgment was ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court on 04.10.2012. Subsequent review applications filed by the appellant were dismissed. The core legal question was whether a final judgment of the Supreme Court can be repeatedly reopened through successive review applications after a lapse of a long time. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that matters which have attained finality cannot be reopened as past and closed transactions, and that review jurisdiction is not akin to an appeal to re-litigate decided points. The key principle laid down is that points once decided by a final judgment cannot be re-agitated in subsequent review petitions, and stale claims that have become past and closed transactions are barred from being reopened.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a final judgment of the Supreme Court can be reopened through successive review applications after a long lapse of time?
  • Can a matter that has attained finality be treated as a past and closed transaction?
  • Whether the jurisdiction in review is akin to an appeal allowing the re-litigation of previously decided points?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. GHAZANFAR, REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Versus MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD BUTT2019 MLD 919 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-27Read full judgment →
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Versus ISMA SHARIF2019 MLD 178 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
• ZAKIA BEGUM Versus MUSHTAQ KHAN2017 MLD 724 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-10-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD RASHAM KHAN2017 MLD 552 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
• Malik MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2017 MLD 519 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-05-11Read full judgment →
• SHAMEEM AKHTAR Versus DISTRICT JUDGE POONCH, RAWALAKOT2017 MLD 402 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus WALI MUHAMMAD2017 MLD 2101 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. CHANAAN BI Versus MUHAMMAD SHAHPAL2017 MLD 2051 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2017 MLD 1761 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Legal Advisor WAPDA/Director (Legal) WAPDA Versus Mst. INAYAT BEGUM2017 MLD 163 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-06-04Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director Legal WAPDA House, Lahore Versus ZAFAR IQBAL2017 MLD 1560 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM TAHIRI Versus MIRPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MIRPUR2017 MLD 1055 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MISKEEN Versus SHABIR HUSSAIN2016 MLD 365 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
• SIKANDER HABIB Versus SHAISTA JABEEN2016 MLD 209 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE2016 MLD 2050 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-11-28Read full judgment →
• Raja GUL NAWAZ Versus KAMRAN2016 MLD 1514 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-10-20Read full judgment →
• MEHARBAN HUSSAIN Versus ZAHIDA KAUSAR2015 MLD 955 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus AHMED DIN2015 MLD 864 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-07-01Read full judgment →
• Syed NAZIR AHMED SHAH GILLANI Versus Syeda NAZIA GILLANI2015 MLD 443 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus Syed ALAM SHAH2014 MLD 1519 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-04-07Read full judgment →
• AYAZ AHMED Versus SHAMIM AKHTER2013 MLD 1897 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-01-22Read full judgment →
• ISAMDAD KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN2012 MLD 1635 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-04-23Read full judgment →
• SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN2012 MLD 1440 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID alias KHALID HUSSAIN Versus SALID HUSSAIN2012 MLD 1112 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-02-23Read full judgment →
• SHEHZAD MUZAFFAR Versus MASAIL KHAN ABBASI2003 MLD 240 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2002-10-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ2003 MLD 1797 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2003-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN Versus Syed ASIF SHAH, INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE2003 MLD 1753 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2003-06-13
  contempt of courtre-investigationcriminal investigationbail cancellationjudicial discretionpolice procedureAzad Jammu and Kashmir law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for contempt of court proceedings against police officials for allegedly violating a previous Supreme Court order regarding the re-investigation of a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the police, by seeking the cancellation of the petitioners' bail instead of submitting a report for the court to determine if process should be issued, committed contempt of court. The Court held that the police officials were prima facie guilty of contempt for misinterpreting the previous judgment and failing to follow the prescribed procedure. However, considering the officers' submission to the court's mercy and their status as junior officers acting under influence, the Court granted them the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them of the contempt charge. The key principle laid down is that police re-investigation must culminate in a report submitted to the trial court, which must then independently apply its judicial mind to determine whether to issue process against the accused, rather than the police directly seeking bail cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the police have the authority to seek the cancellation of bail directly from the court following a re-investigation?
  • What is the correct procedure for police to follow after re-investigating a criminal case under a court order?
  • Is a police officer guilty of contempt of court for misinterpreting a judicial order regarding the submission of investigation reports?
  • Must a trial court independently apply its judicial mind to police investigation reports before issuing process against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNEER AWAN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT2002 MLD 1953 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2002-03-27
  writ jurisdictionstatutory authorityofficial gazettenatural justiceinquiry committeeadministrative lawvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged government notifications dated 24-2-2000 and 2-12-2000, which constituted an inquiry committee to investigate alleged irregularities in the extraction of Kuth by the Forest Department. The petitioner, a retired Conservator of Forests, argued that the notifications lacked statutory authority, were not published in the Official Gazette, and were redundant given a prior 1998 notification ordering proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The core legal questions concerned the validity of executive notifications that fail to cite their source of power and the necessity of official publication for such notifications. The Court held that the impugned notifications were issued without lawful authority. It established that executive orders affecting vested rights must be grounded in specific statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where a law mandates a function be performed in a specific manner—such as publication in the Official Gazette—failure to comply renders the action void. Consequently, the Court declared the notifications and the committee's proceedings illegal, while noting the government remained free to proceed under the earlier 1998 notification.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executive notification affecting the rights of a citizen require an explicit citation of the statutory power under which it is issued?
  • Is a notification issued under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 1956, valid if it is not published in the Official Gazette?
  • Can an executive order be declared void if the procedure prescribed by law for its issuance is not strictly followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Major SHAHPAWL QURESHI Versus CHIEF ADMINISTATOR AUQAF, MUZAFFARABAD2002 MLD 1771 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2002-03-30Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIL Versus MANZOOR AHMAD1998 MLD 310 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE1998 MLD 1321 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Versus Sahibzada ISHAQ ZAFAR, EX-SPEAKER AJ&K LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY1994 MLD 2382 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD1993 MLD 76 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
• MAHBOOB HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MIRPUR1992 MLD 78 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN, ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT/BRANCH MANAGER, MIRPUR Versus M/S. LEEPA SHOES LTD. MIRPUR, THROUGH SHAUKAT ALI, MANAGING DIRECTOR1992 MLD 474 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• FAZAL ARMED Versus ABRAR HUSSAIN1992 MLD 458 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
• IMRAN RAUF QURESHI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY; MUZAFFARABAD1992 MLD 444 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
• SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILLANI Versus SAIN MULLAH1992 MLD 2424 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD QASIM1992 MLD 2407 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
• SARDAR KHAN Versus DASTAR ALIAS BHATTI1992 MLD 2185 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MEHRBAN Versus SADDAR DIN1992 MLD 2179 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
• MANGA Versus BASHIR AHMAD KHAN1992 MLD 2170 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-07-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAOUB Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR1992 MLD 2127 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• SHAHBAZ Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY; MUZAFFARABAD1992 MLD 2121 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1992 MLD 2116 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• GUL KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN1992 MLD 2105 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL HAQUE1992 MLD 2102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-18Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1992 MLD 2083 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• ZAIGHUM SALIM KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM KHAN1992 MLD 1338 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ELLAHI Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1992 MLD 1314 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT1992 MLD 1309 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR1992 MLD 1301 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHABBAT HUSSAIN Versus MST. NASEEM AKHTAR1992 MLD 1294 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DADYAL, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN Versus MISTRI ABDUL REHMAN1992 MLD 1289 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• MIRZA LAL HUSSAIN Versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, AJ&K, MUZAFFARABAD1992 MLD 1280 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →