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.

• SIKANDAR HAYAT Versus ATA,WARYAM,NOORA,HASHMAT,AKBAR,THE STATE1970 PLD 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-17
  criminal appeal withdrawalappeal against acquittalpublic policyappellate jurisdictionSupreme Court of Pakistannon-compoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application by an appellant to withdraw a criminal appeal against an acquittal previously granted by the High Court. The core legal question is whether an appellant, having invoked the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, possesses an absolute right to withdraw the appeal at will. The Court held that no such right exists. It reasoned that criminal proceedings are distinct from civil proceedings; they serve the public interest of punishing offences rather than private advantage. Once the Supreme Court is seized of a criminal appeal, it acquires jurisdiction to ensure justice, and allowing unilateral withdrawal would be contrary to public policy, potentially facilitating compromises or miscarriages of justice. Consequently, the Court ruled that it has a duty to decide such appeals on their merits regardless of the appellant's desire to withdraw. The key principle laid down is that criminal appeals, once admitted, cannot be withdrawn at the appellant's discretion, as the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate public offences overrides the private interests of the parties involved.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellant have an absolute right to withdraw a criminal appeal against an acquittal once the Supreme Court is seized of the matter?
  • Is there a distinction between the right to withdraw a civil appeal and a criminal appeal?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to decide a criminal appeal on its merits even if the appellant seeks to withdraw it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE,1970 PLD 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-19
  constitutional amendmentvirescompulsory retirementgovernment servicede facto doctrinequo warrantooffice of profit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals challenging the vires of the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1966, and the subsequent retirement of government servants under its provisions. The appellants, who had previously received service extensions under the Government Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1963, contested their retirement, arguing that the Sixth Amendment was invalid because it was passed by a National Assembly containing members disqualified under Article 103(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, relying on its prior decision in A.M.K. Leghari v. Government of West Pakistan, held that the acts of de facto members of the National Assembly cannot be invalidated in collateral proceedings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to examine the validity of constitutional amendments, clarifying that the bar under Article 171 did not apply to such inquiries. Regarding the retirement, the Court held that the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1966, explicitly empowered the competent authority to retire personnel, overriding any prior terms and conditions of service, including those granted under the 1963 Rules. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the validity of a constitutional amendment be challenged in collateral proceedings?
  • Does the retirement provision in the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1966, override service extensions previously granted under the Government Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1963?
  • Is the High Court barred by Article 171 of the Constitution from inquiring into the validity of a constitutional amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• SARDARAI AND Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-03
  private defence of propertytenancy rightscriminal trespassproportionality of forcemurder convictionsentence commutationforcible dispossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of their landlord and attempted murder of another individual. The appellants, who were tenants-at-will, claimed they acted in the private defence of property when the deceased landlord attempted to forcibly dispossess them. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants were entitled to use lethal force in these circumstances. The Court held that while a landlord cannot forcibly evict a tenant without due process, and a tenant in settled possession may resist such trespass, the right of private defence is strictly limited by law. The Court affirmed that this right does not extend to causing harm disproportionate to the threat, particularly killing an unarmed trespasser. Because the appellants intentionally killed the deceased rather than merely resisting the trespass, they could not claim the benefit of exceeding the right of private defence. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302/34 was upheld, though the death sentence was commuted to transportation for life, acknowledging the provocation caused by the deceased's illegal attempt to dispossess the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord forcibly dispossess a tenant-at-will without a decree for ejectment?
  • Does the right of private defence of property extend to killing an unarmed trespasser?
  • Is a tenant in settled possession entitled to use force to defend their possession against a landlord?
  • When does an act of violence exceed the right of private defence of property?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD DIN Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-14
  approver testimonycommitting court statementtransfer of evidencecriminal proceduremurder and robberycorroborationretracted confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of the appellants under sections 302/34 and 397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Pir Ghulam Waris Shah and subsequent robbery, resulting in death sentences. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court is whether the previous statement of an approver/witness made in the committing Court and transferred to the record under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used as evidence against the accused without specifically drawing the witness's attention to that statement pursuant to section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Supreme Court held that where the witness's examination-in-chief in the trial Court is consistent with their previous statement in the committing Court, and the witness only retracts during cross-examination, the previous statement can be used as substantive evidence under section 288 and for corroboration under section 157 of the Evidence Act 1872 without needing to comply with the confrontation requirements of section 145. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as the guilt was firmly established by corroborated evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a previous statement of a witness in the committing Court, transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be used as evidence without complying with section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Whether an approver's statement transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes evidence for all purposes?
  • Is compliance with section 145 of the Evidence Act 1872 necessary when there is no contradiction between a witness's testimony in the trial court and their previous statement in the committing court?
  Read full judgment →
• SULTAN AHMAD Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-10
  common intentionprivate defenseright of private arrestcognizable and non-bailable offenceeyewitness reliabilitymurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of two appellants, Sultan Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq, for the double murder of Mst. Rabia and Ali Muhammad under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants shot and killed Mst. Rabia, and while fleeing, were pursued by neighbors and villagers, during which appellant Sultan shot and killed Ali Muhammad, who attempted to apprehend them. The core legal questions examined the reliability of the eyewitnesses whose statements varied slightly from the First Information Report and whether the deceased Ali Muhammad, who joined the pursuit party later, had the legal right to arrest the fleeing culprits under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby negating the appellant's claim of private defense. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence do not warrant rejecting otherwise truthful eyewitness testimony, and that the right of a private person to arrest under Section 59 includes those who join the immediate pursuit upon hue and cry. The Court upheld the convictions for the murder of Mst. Rabia, maintained Sultan's conviction for murdering Ali Muhammad, but acquitted Muhammad Rafiq of the second murder count as it was an individual act without common intention.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy between the First Information Report and medical evidence regarding the number of gunshots render the eyewitness testimony unreliable?
  • Does a private person who joins an immediate pursuit of fleeing offenders upon hearing an outcry possess the legal right to arrest them under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused claim the right of private defense to kill a person attempting to effect an arrest when that arrest is legally authorized under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a co-accused vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an independent act of murder committed by another co-accused during flight to avoid apprehension?
  Read full judgment →
• KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER1970 PLD 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-13
  SeniorityRailway GuardsDepartmental PromoteesDirect RecruitmentService LawConfirmationOfficiating CapacityQuota System
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a seniority dispute between departmental promotees and direct recruits serving as Railway Guards. The appellants challenged a seniority list issued by the General Manager of the Pakistan Western Railway, which effectively relegated promotees to a junior position by applying a 50:50 recruitment quota to seniority fixation. The core legal question was whether vested seniority rights arise upon entry into a grade or upon confirmation, and whether a recruitment quota policy justifies backdating seniority for direct recruits. The Supreme Court held that the 50:50 ratio relates solely to recruitment policy and cannot be extended to determine seniority. The Court ruled that seniority in a grade must be determined by the actual date of entry into that grade, not by the date of confirmation or by artificial rotation. The principle laid down is that all incumbents in a grade must be treated equally regarding seniority upon entry, and a department cannot reserve a lien for a direct recruit on a post to which they have not yet been appointed.

  Questions settled

  • Is seniority in a grade determined by the date of entry into that grade or by the date of confirmation?
  • Does a 50:50 recruitment quota policy justify determining seniority based on the date of vacancy rather than the date of entry into the grade?
  • Can a department reserve a lien for a direct recruit on a post to which they have not yet been appointed?
  Read full judgment →
• SAMMAN Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM1970 PLD 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-04Read full judgment →
• SARFARAZ AND Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN1970 PLD 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MUTALEB Versus MST. REZIA BEGUM1970 PLD 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-12-23
  leasedestruction of premisesdoctrine of frustrationtransfer of propertykhas possessiontenancyoption of lessee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan dismissing a second appeal in a suit for recovery of khas possession of land after the huts thereon were destroyed by fire. The core legal question was whether a lease of premises comprising both land and huts automatically determines upon the destruction of the huts by fire. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the demised premises included both the huts and the underlying land, which remained unaffected by the fire; thus, the subject-matter was not wholly destroyed. Furthermore, under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, destruction is not a mode of termination, and Section 108(e) grants an option to the lessee to void the lease rather than extinguishing it automatically. The Court also held that the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Contract Act 1872 does not apply to completed leases of immovable property. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a lease of premises comprising both land and huts automatically terminate upon the destruction of the huts by fire?
  • Whether the destruction of the subject-matter of a lease is a ground for the automatic determination of a lease under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Contract Act 1872 apply to a completed lease creating an estate in immovable property?
  • Does Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to the total destruction of the demised property as well as partial destruction?
  Read full judgment →
• MIAN MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMM SSIOAER, KHAIRPUR1970 PLD 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-20
  temporary injunctionjurisdiction of civil courtnullityexhaustion of remediesland revenue recoverynatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the recovery of Ijara tax and penalties as land revenue arrears by filing a civil suit and seeking a temporary injunction. The lower appellate court and High Court vacated the injunction, holding that the suit was barred under Section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 because the appellant had not exhausted all departmental appeals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the statutory bar applied when the impugned order was alleged to be a nullity. The Court held that where an order or certificate is challenged as a nullity, passed without jurisdiction, or in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and natural justice, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. Finding that the appellant had established a strong prima facie case regarding the lack of proper determination of the tax and notice, the Court restored the temporary injunction subject to a personal bond.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act 1876 bar a civil suit if the impugned revenue order is challenged as a nullity in law?
  • Can a civil court examine a revenue matter where the statutory tribunal has failed to comply with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure?
  • What conditions must a plaintiff satisfy to obtain a temporary injunction during the pendency of a civil suit challenging a tax recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADASHIQ FAQIR Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-03Read full judgment →
• MOLLAH EJAHAR ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN1970 PLD 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-05-08
  misconductremoval from officeBasic Democracies Orderspeaking orderjudicial reviewabuse of powerwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Chairman of a Union Council, challenged his removal from office following allegations of misconduct involving the issuance of a false residential certificate to an Indian national during his previous term. The core legal questions were whether misconduct committed during a prior term of office could serve as grounds for removal from a subsequent term under the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, and whether the High Court’s summary dismissal of the writ petition constituted a proper judicial disposal. The Supreme Court held that the misconduct, being a reflection on personal character, remained a valid ground for removal regardless of the term in which it occurred, as the statute used the phrase 'any Local Council' in the relevant provision. Furthermore, the Court criticized the High Court for its perfunctory, non-speaking order, emphasizing that judicial decisions must provide reasons to ensure transparency and demonstrate that the court applied its mind. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant's actions, performed under his official seal, constituted misconduct in the discharge of his duties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Chairman be removed from office for misconduct committed during a previous term of office?
  • Does a summary dismissal of a writ petition without reasons satisfy the requirements of a judicial order?
  • Does the phrase 'any Local Council' in Article 25(3)(b) of the Basic Democracies Order 1959 extend the scope of misconduct to previous terms of office?
  • Is the issuance of a false residential certificate under an official seal considered misconduct in the discharge of duties as a Chairman?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ Versus AMIR MUNIR2025 PLD 14 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• Khawaja AAMIR AHMED Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2022 PLD 49 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
• 2022 PLD 3062022 PLD 306 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-08-26Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Labour and Human Resources Department2022 PLD 298 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN PEOPLES PARTY PARLIAMENTARIANS (PPPP) Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad2022 PLD 290 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
• SHARAFAT KHAN Versus State2022 PLD 281 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-02-28
  narcoticsrepresentative samplefair trialcriminal liabilitysentencingchemical examiner reportpossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for possession of 25,000 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether samples taken from packets of narcotics, which contain multiple individual slabs, constitute 'representative samples' if not drawn from every single slab, and whether the accused can be held liable for the entire quantity if only a portion is tested. The Court held that for the purposes of safe administration of criminal justice and to satisfy the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, a representative sample must be drawn from every physically separate and independent unit of the recovered narcotic drug. Failure to test every unit means the prosecution only proves the narcotic nature of the quantity actually tested. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, as the prosecution failed to establish the narcotic nature of the entire 25,000 grams. The principle established is that testing and analysis of a representative sample is a sine qua non for criminal liability, requiring samples from every physically independent unit of the contraband.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sample taken from a packet of narcotics constitute a representative sample if it is not drawn from every physically separate and independent unit within that packet?
  • Can an accused be held criminally liable for the entire quantity of a recovered narcotic drug if only a portion of the total quantity has been tested and analyzed by a Government Analyst?
  • Is the testing and analysis of a representative sample a mandatory requirement for establishing criminal liability under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• MUJAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI, FORMER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Versus AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2018 PLD 53 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-04-13
  review petitionpast and closed transactioncomplete justicelimitation periodcivil servantdismissal from servicefinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arises from a challenge to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which had dismissed an application seeking review of finalized matters concerning a civil servant's dismissal from service. The core legal question was whether a party can repeatedly reopen and challenge long-settled judgments that have attained finality, under the guise of seeking 'complete justice'. The court held that the power to do 'complete justice' does not permit the court to contravene statutory limitations, disregard rules of finality, or reopen past and closed transactions simply to satisfy a litigant. The key principle laid down is that finality attached to judicial decisions must be respected, and the extraordinary power of review cannot be utilized to circumvent limitation periods or re-litigate closed controversies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for review can be used to reopen judgments that have attained finality and become past and closed transactions?
  • Does the power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice allow it to bypass statutory limitations and revive concluded proceedings?
  • Can a party challenge a finalized judgment through a subsequent review petition directed against an ancillary order?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHZAD RAUF Versus SHABANA YASMIN2018 PLD 31 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-19Read full judgment →
• CH. LATIF AKBAR, FORMER FINANCE MINISTER, MUZAFFARABAD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2018 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-02-21Read full judgment →
• AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN, PROJECT DIRECTOR2017 PLD 18 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• NOOR ALAM Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF2017 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-30Read full judgment →
• NOMAN RAZZAQ Versus FARYAD HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY2015 PLD 7 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-04-21Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMED MUGHAL Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2015 PLD 31 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-08-25
  independence of judiciaryShariat Courtappointment of judgesconsultation with Chief Justicevires of statutefundamental rightsaccess to justiceseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave arose from a consolidated judgment of the High Court dismissing writ petitions that challenged the vires of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court Act, 1993, and the appointment of Shariat Court judges. The core legal question was whether appointing Shariat Court judges without mandatory consultation with the Chief Justices violates the independence of judiciary and fundamental rights under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the provisions of section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court Act, 1993, which permit executive appointments without consulting the Chief Justices and lack provisions for judicial removal or the inclusion of Ulema judges, are ultra vires the Constitution Act, as they infringe upon fundamental rights and the independence of the judiciary. The Court declared such appointments void ab initio while saving past acts under the de facto doctrine, and laid down mandatory constitutional requirements for the proper establishment and composition of the Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of Judges of the Shariat Court without mandatory consultation with the Chief Justices violates the independence of the judiciary under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
  • Does a statute empowering the executive to make judicial appointments without consultation violate the fundamental right to equal protection of law and access to justice?
  • Are the provisions of Section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court Act, 1993, ultra vires the Constitution for lacking provisions regarding judicial removal and the inclusion of Aalim judges?
  • Can acts performed by judges whose appointments are subsequently declared unconstitutional be validated under the de facto doctrine?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL RASHEED2015 PLD 23 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-05-19Read full judgment →
• ALI SHAN Versus IFTIKHAR AHMED2015 PLD 17 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN2015 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-03-10Read full judgment →
• BASIT MUKHTAR Versus TALHA SARFARAZ2014 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Versus MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN KHATAK2013 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-12-24Read full judgment →
• SHAHID NADEEM Versus MUHAMMAD MANSHA2012 PLD 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2011-06-20
  acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceeye-witness credibilityunnatural conductstatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.concurrent findingsmurderbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal challenged the judgment of the Shariat Court, which upheld the trial court's order acquitting the respondent of murder under Section 302 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the credibility of sole eye-witness testimony, the naturalness of the witnesses' conduct in failing to promptly report the crime, the legal validity of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without compliance with statutory formalities, and the weight to be given to concurrent findings of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the alleged eye-witness was unnatural, contradictory to medical evidence, and akin to an accomplice due to delayed reporting and failure to inform authorities. The Court reaffirmed that an order of acquittal fortified by concurrent findings will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court should interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal that carry a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of an alleged eye-witness in failing to promptly report a murder render their testimony unreliable without independent corroboration?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to comply with mandatory statutory requirements and omit dates when recording witness statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can uncrossed portions of a witness's statement be treated as admitted when the witness's overall testimony and conduct are found to be doubtful and incredible?
  Read full judgment →
• WAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus ALI SHAH2011 PLD 25 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2010-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK Versus KARAM ELLAHI2011 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2011-02-09
  Qisas and DiyyatAggrieved personAcquittal appealWaliLocus standiIslamic Penal LawsCriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir addressed the legal standing of complainants to file appeals against acquittals or for the enhancement of sentences in cases involving Qisas and Diyyat. The core legal question was defining an "aggrieved person" entitled to appeal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic (Penal) Laws Enforcement Act, 1974, following the enactment of the Qisas and Diyyat Act, 1995. The Court held that the right to appeal in such cases is not open to the public at large or mere complainants. Instead, the right is restricted to the wali (the legal heirs in murder cases or the victim in hurt cases) and the State. The Court established that because the wali possesses the exclusive right to compound or waive Qisas, they are the only parties with a sufficient legal interest to challenge an acquittal. Consequently, a complainant or witness who does not fall within the definition of a wali lacks the locus standi to maintain an appeal against an acquittal or for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' entitled to file an appeal against an acquittal in cases of Qisas and Diyyat?
  • Can a complainant or witness who is not a wali file an appeal against an acquittal in a murder or hurt case?
  • Does the right to appeal against an acquittal in Qisas and Diyyat cases vest in anyone other than the wali or the State?
  Read full judgment →
• AMEEN GENERAL ENTERPRISES through Managing Director Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVENRMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2010 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2008-08-11Read full judgment →
• KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD AFSAR2009 PLD 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2009-02-13Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMED Versus State2009 PLD 22 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2008-11-11
  murderchance witnesssole eye-witnessappreciation of evidencesentencingcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the reliability of a sole, interested, and chance eye-witness, particularly when the prosecution case relied on such testimony alongside recovery evidence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the prosecution's case was proved, relying solely on the testimony of a chance witness who is closely related to the deceased and has a history of criminal involvement is unsafe for awarding capital punishment or life imprisonment. The Court established the principle that where a sole eye-witness is a chance witness with admitted enmity and questionable character, their evidence requires strict scrutiny and strong corroboration; in such circumstances, while conviction may be sustained, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment or death is disproportionate. Consequently, the Court set aside the life sentence and reduced it to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a chance witness who is also related to the deceased?
  • Does the recording of an F.I.R. after preliminary investigation render the entire prosecution case false?
  • Is it safe to award capital punishment or life imprisonment based on the evidence of a sole eye-witness who has a history of criminal involvement?
  • What is the effect of a chance witness's enmity with the accused on the evidentiary value of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• MAQSOOD AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD RAZZAQUE2009 PLD 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2009-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM Versus MAZHAR HUSSAIN2009 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2009-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus TARIQ MAHMOOD2008 PLD 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2007-12-14
  murdercounter-versionbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealself-defenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a murder conviction. The prosecution alleged the appellant murdered the deceased using a rifle, while the defence presented a counter-version claiming the deceased was killed during a scuffle where the complainant party was the aggressor. The Shariat Court convicted the appellant, prompting appeals regarding both the conviction and the sentence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined the conflicting versions, noting significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, including the failure to recover blood-stained clay, discrepancies between the medical report and eye-witness accounts regarding firing distance, and the failure of the prosecution to produce a key independent witness. The Court held that when two conflicting versions of an occurrence are presented, both must be placed in juxtaposition to determine which is more plausible. Since the prosecution failed to investigate the defence's counter-version despite evidence supporting it, and given the lack of corroboration from forensic reports, the Court concluded the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • How should a court resolve a case where both the prosecution and the defence present conflicting, probable versions of an occurrence?
  • Is the prosecution required to investigate a counter-version of an incident raised by the accused?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a key independent witness and the presence of significant evidentiary contradictions entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAMIM AKHTER Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN2008 PLD 23 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2008-05-23
  revision petitiontransfer of casejurisdiction of single judgeplace of sittingright of audiencenatural justiceShariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Shariat Court, whereby a case pending at the principal seat in Muzaffarabad was transferred to the Rawalakot Circuit. The core legal question was whether a single judge of the Shariat Court is competent to transfer a case from one place of sitting to another, and whether such an order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposing party is sustainable. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that, under Rule 22 of the AJ&K Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1982, only the Chief Justice of the Shariat Court possesses the authority to direct the hearing of a case at a place other than the principal seat. Furthermore, the Court held that transferring the case on the same day the petitioner's adjournment application was granted, without providing an opportunity for hearing or inviting objections, violated the principles of natural justice by condemning the petitioner unheard. The petition was accepted and the impugned transfer order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a learned Judge of the Shariat Court is competent to transfer a case from one place of sitting to another without the directions of the Chief Justice?
  • Can a case be transferred to another place of sitting without providing an opportunity of hearing to the opposing party?
  Read full judgment →
• MUJAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT2007 PLD 92 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2007-05-30Read full judgment →
• ABDUL REHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ alias MAKHA2007 PLD 77 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2007-02-15
  Haraabahmurder during robberydeath sentencesite planeye-witness testimonyrelated witnessesballistics reportenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was brought against a Shariat Court judgment that converted the respondent's death sentence under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act 1985 to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of the Azad Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondent blocked the victim's path, attempted to rob her, and fatally shot her with a gun. The core legal questions pertained to whether the presence of eye-witnesses could be discounted based on their recorded positions in the site plan and whether an attempted robbery resulting in murder constitutes Haraabah under Section 17(4). The Supreme Court held that the site plan supported the testimony of the eye-witnesses and that the Shariat Court erred in ignoring crucial corroborative evidence, including the ballistics report and post-mortem examination. Restoring the trial court's death sentence, the Court reaffirmed that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not discredit their testimony absent proof of enmity, and that committing murder during an attempted robbery satisfies the elements of Section 17(4).

  Questions settled

  • Can a site plan be utilized to determine whether eye-witnesses were in a position to observe the commission of a crime?
  • Does the mere close relationship between prosecution witnesses and the victim justify discarding their testimony in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does an attack involving the use of firearm force during an attempted robbery that results in murder constitute the offence of Haraabah punishable by death under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act 1985?
  Read full judgment →
• TAHIR MAHMOOD Versus KHALID SHARIF2007 PLD 603 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IRSHAD Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM alias BAGI2007 PLD 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2006-10-13Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT HUSSAIN and another Versus ULFAT KHAN2007 PLD 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2007-05-18
  double murderQisasrelated eye-witnessesLalkarafirearm corroborationappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals arise from a double murder case where the appellant Liaqat Hussain was convicted and sentenced to twice Qisas under section 302 of Azad Penal Code, along with related weapons and rioting charges, while his co-accused father Muhammad Khan was initially convicted on a charge involving a Lalkara. The core legal questions pertained to the reliability of related and inimical eye-witnesses, the necessity of corroboration for natural witnesses, the evidentiary value of expert firearm reports regarding recovered crime empties and weapons, and the legal sustainability of a conviction based solely on a proverbial Lalkara. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the ocular testimony of natural eye-witnesses, even if related, is fully reliable and sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration when free from material contradictions and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. However, regarding the co-accused father, the court held that a mere Lalkara attributed to an unarmed elderly person in the absence of an overt act is insufficient to safely sustain a conviction, entitling him to the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that mere relationship or prior enmity does not discredit eye-witnesses whose presence is natural and whose testimony is corroborated by objective circumstances, and that a proverbial Lalkara by an unarmed accused requires strict scrutiny and independent corroboration to warrant a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and inimical eye-witnesses can form the sole basis of a criminal conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the strict compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain mandatory for police recoveries of weapons and crime empties?
  • Is a conviction sustainable against an accused person where the only allegation attributed is a proverbial Lalkara without any overt act?
  • What constitutes sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a sentence of Qisas in a trial for double murder?
  Read full judgment →
• BUSHRA RAHIM Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON through Secretary, Muzaffarabad2007 PLD 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2006-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State2006 PLD 75 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2006-06-23
  Qisas and DiyatNecessary partyCriminal appealLimitation periodWaliIslamic Penal LawsImpleadmentSentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Shariat Court order that enhanced the sentences of the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal question is whether an appeal is competent when the legal heirs of the deceased, who successfully sought sentence enhancement in the lower court, are not impleaded as respondents, with only the State named as a party. The Supreme Court held that the appeal is incompetent and dismissed it. The Court established that in cases involving Qisas and Diyat, the legal heirs (wali) of the deceased are the necessary parties, not the State, particularly where the State did not challenge the original trial court judgment. The Court affirmed that the right to waive or compound offences vests in the heirs, making them the interested parties who must be impleaded to ensure an effective judgment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that applications to implead necessary parties filed after the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal or revision are time-barred and cannot be entertained, as allowing them would effectively bypass the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal heirs of a deceased victim necessary parties in an appeal against a conviction in a murder case involving Qisas?
  • Can an appeal be maintained if the only respondent named is the State, while the legal heirs of the deceased, who were the successful parties in the lower court, are omitted?
  • Does the right to waive or compound an offence of Qatl-e-Amd vest in the State or the legal heirs of the victim?
  • Can an application to implead necessary parties be allowed if it is filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• HAKAM DEEN Versus State2006 PLD 43 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2006-04-21
  criminal trial procedurefair trialTazkiapurgation of witnessesmandatory procedural complianceremandCode of Criminal ProcedureQisas and Diyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which upheld a conviction for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements—specifically, the seven-day notice period for supplying documents, the premature commencement of trial before framing charges, and the omission of Tazkia (purgation) of witnesses—vitiated the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s disregard for these mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 rendered the trial illegal. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential components of a fair trial. The ratio establishes that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be followed strictly; failure to do so, particularly in criminal trials, cannot be cured by the doctrine of no prejudice or the desire for speedy disposal. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial conducted in strict accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to observe the mandatory seven-day period for supplying documents to the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is the Tazkia (purgation) of prosecution witnesses mandatory in cases involving Qisas and Hadood?
  • Can a trial court bypass mandatory procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the interest of speedy disposal of cases?
  • Does the omission of Tazkia (purgation) of witnesses render a conviction in a murder case illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. MUHAMMAD ALTAF and another Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 9 others2004 PLD 45 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE Versus Eng. MUHAMMAD KHALID2004 PLD 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• RAJA IQBAL RASHID MINHAS, ADVOCATE Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL2002 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2001-12-12Read full judgment →
• ALAM SHER Versus SUBA2001 PLD 60 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2001-05-30Read full judgment →
• MIRZA JAVED IQBAL Versus THE STATE THROUGH CHIEF PROSECUTOR, EHTESAB BUREAU, AZAD KASHMIR2001 PLD 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2001-03-02
  bailabsconsionjurisdiction of superior courtsEhtesab Actproclamationinherent powersinterlocutory orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was moved under sections 497, 498, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act seeking release on bail and the cancellation of a warrant issued under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the petitioner's bail was cancelled by the Ehtesab Court due to alleged absconsion following the transfer of the reference. The core legal questions involved whether the superior courts possess jurisdiction to entertain bail matters despite bars in special legislation, and whether an accused can be legally declared an absconder without proper inquiry and mandatory procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the superior courts retain inherent and constitutional powers to grant bail and that ouster of jurisdiction cannot be established by mere implication, and further found that the petitioner was not validly an absconder since his personal attendance had been dispensed with and mandatory procedures under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not followed. The court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be excluded except by express and definite statutory terms, and that absconsion cannot be presumed without due inquiry and adherence to statutory proclamations.

  Questions settled

  • Does subordinate legislation barring court jurisdiction effectively oust the inherent and constitutional bail powers of superior courts?
  • Can an accused person be legally declared an absconder without conducting a due inquiry and following mandatory proclamation procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the appellate court is vested with the same powers to grant bail as the trial court under special enactments?
  • Is an accused whose personal attendance has been properly dispensed with liable to have his bail cancelled on the ground of absence?
  Read full judgment →
• DIL MUHAMMAD Versus RIAYASAT HUSSAIN2001 PLD 4 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2000-11-06Read full judgment →
• ALI ASGHAR ABBASI Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL THROUGH SECRETARY, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL AT ISLAMABAD2001 PLD 33 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2001-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus THE STATE2001 PLD 24 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2001-01-17Read full judgment →
• VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD Versus MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD KHALID2001 PLD 21 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2000-11-17Read full judgment →
• KHAWAJA ABDUL QAYYUM Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, MUZAFFARABAD2001 PLD 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2000-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus THE STATE2001 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2000-06-29
  joint witness testimonycriminal procedureadditional evidenceappellate court powersQanun-e-ShahadatIslamic law interpretationwitness examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Shariat Court judgment regarding the legality of recording joint statements of female witnesses in criminal trials. The core legal questions were whether the joint examination of female witnesses, previously justified by an interpretation of Verse 282 of Surah Al-Baqara, was legally permissible in criminal proceedings, and whether the appellate court correctly exercised its powers under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the re-recording of evidence as additional evidence. The Court held that the joint recording of statements is alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, and that Verse 282 of Surah Al-Baqara applies only to civil or financial liabilities, not criminal cases. The Court affirmed that the appellate court properly invoked Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify the illegality by ordering the re-examination of witnesses, rather than setting aside the convictions for a de novo trial. The key principle established is that criminal evidence must be recorded separately, and procedural irregularities in witness examination are curable as additional evidence without necessitating a full retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the joint recording of statements of female witnesses in criminal cases legally permissible?
  • Does Verse 282 of Surah Al-Baqara apply to the recording of evidence in criminal trials?
  • Can an appellate court order the re-recording of witness statements under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without setting aside the entire conviction?
  • Is the failure to raise an objection to the mode of recording evidence at the trial stage a bar to raising it on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MONA LISA FRUIT JUICE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH1998 PLD 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• MIAN BASHARAT AHMED Versus RENT CONTROLLER/SUB-JUDGE, MUZAFFARABAD1998 PLD 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• RAJA MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN Versus RAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD KHAN1998 PLD 15 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus MUHAMMAD AFSAR1997 PLD 28 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN, MAIN BRANCH MIRPUR, AZAD KASHMIR Versus CHOUDHRY AMIR BAZ1997 PLD 15 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-01Read full judgment →
• SUMANDAR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN1996 PLD 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• 1996 PLD 291996 PLD 29 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• SAHIBZADA MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE ZAFAR, ADVOCATE Versus SPEAKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD1996 PLD 12 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
• 1996 PLD 11996 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1995 PLD 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• LIAQUAT HUSSAIN Versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY OF AJ&K, MUZAFFARABAD1994 PLD 90 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• UMAR BAKHSH Versus STATE1994 PLD 86 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI Versus RASIB KHAN1994 PLD 8 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
• HIROKU MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF1994 PLD 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus ALMA BIBI1993 PLD 168 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1993 PLD 153 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-08-16Read full judgment →
• MALIK MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus REVISING AUTHORITY1989 PLD 52 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• MAJ. ABDUL QAYYUM Versus FAZAL DAD KHAN1989 PLD 50 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
• PROF. MIRZA SHER BAZ KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN M.D.A. MIRPUR1989 PLD 47 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-01-23Read full judgment →
• FAZAL ELAHI Versus JALAL DIN1989 PLD 42 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-28Read full judgment →
• BASHRAT HUSSAIN Versus KARAM HUSSAIN1989 PLD 37 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus BOSTAN1989 PLD 33 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ1989 PLD 28 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
• KARAM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1989 PLD 11 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• SABIR HUSSAIN ALIAS TONCHI Versus THE STATE1989 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 61988 PLD 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 481988 PLD 48 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-02-17Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 421988 PLD 42 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-02-08Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 351988 PLD 35 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-01-24Read full judgment →
• SAFDAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1988 PLD 31 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 271988 PLD 27 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• MIRZA ASLAM BEG Versus SAGHIR IQBAL1988 PLD 24 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 2071988 PLD 207 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 2031988 PLD 203 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 1991988 PLD 199 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 1901988 PLD 190 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 1841988 PLD 184 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 1811988 PLD 181 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-03-20Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLD 1761988 PLD 176 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-03-15Read full judgment →
• SHERBAZ Versus MST. GULZAR BEGUM1988 PLD 173 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →