SCMR July 2023 Part 1

www.legalsearch.
pk 1
Index
Sr. No. Court Title with Citation Legal Topics Page no.
Dr. MOHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI---

Pe t i t i o n e r Ve r s u s K h awa j a K H A L I D Illegal
1 FAROOQ KHAN and others---Respondents allotment of 3
plots.
2023 SCMR 1208
ALLIED BANK LIMITED---Petitioner
Versus HABIB-UR-REHMAN and others--- Specific Relief
2 Respondents 4
Act 1877
2023 SCMR 1232
Pre Arrest and
JAMALUDDIN and another---Petitioners
Versus The STATE---Respondent Post Arrest Bail
3 6
2023 SCMR 1243 in Ss. 324, 148
& 149
Mian AZAM WAHEED and 2 others--- Custom
Petitioners Versus The COLLECTOR OF Matter/
4 CUSTOMS through Additional Collector of Challenging 7
Customs, Karachi---Respondent of Valuation
2023 SCMR 1247 Ruling
Supreme
ALLIED BANK LIMITED---Appellant Contract Act
Court Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1872/
5 through Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar Contract of 9
and others---Respondents Guarantee
2023 SCMR 1258
D r. A B D U L N A B I , P R O F E S S O R ,
Cantonment
D E PA R T M E N T O F C H E M I S T RY,
Act/ Rebate
U N I V E R S I T Y O F BA L O C H I S TA N,
in Property
6 SARIAB ROAD, QUETTA---Petitioner Versus 10
tax to
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT
Government
BOARD, QUETTA---Respondent
servant.
2023 SCMR 1267
ABDUL WAHID---Appellant Versus The
Murder
7 STATE---Respondent 12
Appeal
2023 SCMR 1278
CHANCELLOR PRESTON UNIVERSITY, Suit for

KOHAT and others---Appellants Versus Damages
8 HABIBULLAH KHAN---Respondent against 13
unaccredited
2023 SCMR 1284
university.
Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

www.legalsearch.pk 2
SALMAN ASHRAF---Petitioner Versus Concurrent

A D D I T I O NA L D I S T R I C T J U D G E , Civil and
9 LAHORE and others---Respondents 15
Criminal
2023 SCMR 1292 Proceedings.
Criminal
Supreme NAZIR AHMED---Petitioner Versus The
Appeal/Anti
10 STATE---Respondent 17
Court Terrorism Act
2023 SCMR 1299
1997
MUHAMMAD RIAZ---Petitioner Versus Punjab Pre-
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others---
11 Respondents emption Act 18
2023 SCMR 1305 1991
LEGALSEARCH.PK

Dr. MOHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI---Petitioner Versus Khawaja KHALID

FAROOQ KHAN and others---Respondents
Citation: 2023 SCMR 1208
Result: Appeal Accepted
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Date of Decision: 19.06.2023.
Judge(s): Qazi Faez Isa and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Case Number: Civil Petition No. 3203 of 2017

Ratio Decidendi:
(a) Jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution: The case highlights that jurisdiction
conferred by the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly under Articles 184, 185, and 199,
ranks higher than jurisdiction conferred by law. While jurisdiction conferred by law can
be revoked by law, the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution cannot be revoked
through legislation.
LEGALSEARCH.PK
(b) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972): In a specific instance, a constitutional
petition filed before the High Court was dismissed by a Single Judge. The petitioner
directly filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court without exhausting
the available remedy of filing an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3(2) of the Law
Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The court clarified that the appellate jurisdiction created by
the Ordinance and other laws does not eliminate the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court may
require the ICA to be availed of first in appropriate cases.
(c) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) - Constitutional Petition: This part of the
case involves a constitutional petition challenging the illegal allotment of a plot in the
National Police Foundation Housing Scheme. The High Court had dismissed the
petition, claiming that the Foundation was a private trust not subject to the High Court's
writ jurisdiction. The petitioner filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal before the Supreme
Court without pursuing the available remedy of filing an Intra Court Appeal under the
Law Reforms Ordinance. The court found that the Foundation was not a purely private
entity and had received substantial funds from the Federal Government, making it
amenable to writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the case involved fundamental rights,

including the right to life and dignity, making the objection regarding the appeal's direct
filing unsustainable.
(d) Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Illegal Allotment of Plots: In this section, the case
discusses the illegal allotment of a plot by the Managing Director (MD) of the National
Police Foundation. The MD had allocated a designated park/green area as a residential
plot and subsequently sold it for a profit. The court ruled that the sale agreement between
the MD and the buyer was void due to its unlawful object. Both the MD and the
Foundation concealed the plot's designated use from the buyer. The court ordered the
MD to refund the amounts received from the buyer, and the Foundation was directed to
refund the amount it received for the plot. The buyer was entitled to compensation, and
the limitation period for any legal action would commence from the date of the court's
judgment.
(d) Remand:
Generally, when a court fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and/or does not exercise
LEGALSEARCH.PK
jurisdiction for an incorrect reason, the case is remanded to that court for a decision on
merits.
Conclusion:
Overall, the case addresses issues related to jurisdiction under the Constitution, the use of
legal remedies, the legality of plot allotments, and the responsibility of public entities in
handling land allocations.
_________________________________________________________________________
ALLIED BANK LIMITED---Petitioner Versus HABIB-UR-REHMAN and others---
Respondents
Judge(s): Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

Case Number: Civil Petition No. 2537 of 2020

Ratio Decidendi:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) - Suit for Declaration and Recovery of Benevolent
Funds: This case involves a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and the recovery
of benevolent funds by an employee of a private bank. The appellant bank introduced a
new retirement benefits scheme ("the new scheme") through a circular. This scheme came
into effect from July 1, 2002, and generally applied to all bank employees unless they
submitted a "written option" for the pension on the frozen basic pay by September 30,
2002. The new scheme protected the pension up to June 30, 2002, and introduced new
retirement benefits in the form of a Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and gratuity
from July 1, 2002. It clearly froze the basic pay as of June 30, 2002, for calculating the
pension for employees who opted for the old scheme. The respondent did not submit a
written option for the old scheme and received retirement benefits under the new scheme
without objection. The court found that he was estopped from challenging the legality of
the new scheme. The trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit was deemed
LEGALSEARCH.PK
appropriate, and the petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and
allowed.
(b) Precedent - Doctrine of Binding Precedent: This section discusses the doctrine of
binding precedent, emphasizing its role in promoting certainty and consistency in
judicial decisions. The doctrine ensures that legal decisions build upon existing
precedents and contribute to the systematic development of the law.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan - Decisions of Supreme Court Binding: This part of the
case delves into Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which establishes that
decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts in Pakistan. It clarifies that
only when the Supreme Court deliberately and intentionally settles a legal issue in its
pronouncement does it become binding on other courts. Not every statement or
observation in a Supreme Court judgment creates a precedent with a binding effect.
Decisions lacking expression, reasons, or a conscious consideration of an issue do not
have the binding force contemplated by Article 189 of the Constitution.
_________________________________________________________________________

JAMALUDDIN and another---Petitioners Versus The STATE---Respondent
Result: Bail Granted
Judge(s): Yahya Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Muhammad Ali
Mazhar, JJ
Case Number: Criminal Petitions Nos. 41-K and 42-K of 2023

Ratio Decidendi:
This case pertains to Pre Arrest and Post Arrest bail under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C.
at Police Station:
The accused in this case were facing allegations of a murderous assault with firearms. The
issue at hand was the grant and confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail for the accused
and post-arrest bail for a co-accused.
LEGALSEARCH.PK
The key points and facts are as follows:
1. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged after a delay of approximately
three days following the incident.
2. The complainant's explanation for the delay was that they initially obtained a
police letter for medical treatment from the Civil Hospital. Subsequently, after
receiving treatment, they lodged the FIR. However, this explanation was not
deemed convincing, especially since the police were allegedly approached on the
first day itself.
3. Both the complainant and the injured prosecution witness sustained injuries on
non-vital parts of their bodies.
4. Despite having the opportunity to do so, the accused and co-accused did not repeat
the use of firearms.
5. The question of whether Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) would be
applicable in the case or not was left for determination by the Trial Court after
recording evidence.
6. The case against the accused and co-accused was deemed to fall within the scope of
Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which entitles them to
further inquiry into their guilt.
As a result, the petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals. The ad-interim
pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was confirmed, and the co-accused was admitted to
post-arrest bail.
_________________________________________________________________________
Mian AZAM WAHEED and 2 others---Petitioners Versus The COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi---Respondent
Result: Petition Dismissed
Judge(s): Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Ayesha A. Malik,
JJ
LEGALSEARCH.PK
Case Number: Civil Petitions Nos. 3215, 3644, 3656, 3657 to 3689, 3731 to 3732,
3216, 3745 to 3749, 3217, 3634 to 3643, 3645 to 3655, 3690 to 3730, 3733 to 3744, 3750 to
3780 of 2021
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Challenge to Valuation Ruling:
This case revolves around the challenge to a Valuation Ruling ("the Ruling") issued
by the Customs department under the Customs Act, 1969. The key legal points and
facts are as follows:
The importers filed a constitutional petition before the High Court to challenge the
Valuation Ruling.
The High Court questioned the maintainability of the constitutional petition since
the importers did not avail the alternate remedy of review provided under Section
25D of the Customs Act, 1969.
The Court noted that instead of directly challenging the Valuation Ruling in the
High Court, the appropriate course of action for the importers was to file a Review
Petition against the Ruling under Section 25D. This statutory remedy allows for the
raising of factual disputes regarding valuation and transactional value.
The legislature intentionally provided this remedy in the law to address grievances
related to Valuation Rulings and to offer an opportunity for the Director General
Valuation to rectify any legal or factual defects in the Ruling.
In this case, the Valuation Ruling did not violate any provision of the Customs Act,
1969 that would warrant a constitutional challenge in the High Court. Therefore,
the appropriate and best available remedy was to file a review petition under
Section 25D rather than directly approaching the High Court.
The High Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions due to a lack of jurisdiction.
LEGALSEARCH.PK
The petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, and leave was refused.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan - Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies:

The case highlights the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, which restricts litigants from
seeking remedies in a new court or jurisdiction until they have exhausted the remedies
provided under the existing law. The doctrine emphasizes that litigants should not be
encouraged to bypass or circumvent the procedures outlined in relevant statutes that offer
precise remedies for challenging actions.
(c) Interim Order - Principles:

The case underscores the principle that no interlocutory or interim order remains in force
after the original proceeding comes to an end. Interim orders are issued in support of the
final order that the court may ultimately pass, and they merge into the final order.
Consequently, interim orders do not continue to have legal effect once the final
adjudication is reached.
_________________________________________________________________________

ALLIED BANK LIMITED---Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

through Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar and others---Respondents
Judge(s): Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 196-P of 2014
Ratio Decidendi:
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Bank Guarantee and Contract of Guarantee: This case
pertains to a bank guarantee and the principles governing it under the Contract Act, 1872.
The relevant law points and facts are as follows:
1. A bank guarantee is considered a contract under the Contract Act, 1872, and
LEGALSEARCH.PK
parties to the guarantee are bound by the terms they have mutually agreed upon.
2. The principle of consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds) applies when
interpreting the terms of contracts, including guarantees.
3. Once a guarantee is executed between the guarantor (or surety) and a creditor, the
parties are obligated to adhere to the terms and conditions of the guarantee,
regardless of any independent obligation between the principal debtor and the
creditor.
4. When a bank issues a guarantee, it is legally obligated to make payment to the
beneficiary of the guarantee in accordance with the terms specified in the
guarantee itself.
(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Encashment of Bank Guarantee and Customs Act: This
case focuses on the encashment of a bank guarantee and its relationship with the
Customs Act, 1969. The key law points and facts are as follows:
1. A bank guarantee is an independent contract between the guarantor (in this case,
the appellant-bank) and the beneficiary (in this case, the Customs department).
2. The bank guarantee is effective for a limited period unless it specifically states that it
is a continuing guarantee and does not specify a date or event of expiry.

3. The purpose of the guarantee is limited, i.e., to pay the specified amount upon a
valid call made within the specified time.
4. The parties to the guarantee contract are obligated to follow the terms and
conditions specified in the guarantee, including its expiry date.
5. If a valid call is not received by the guarantor within the specified time, the
guarantor is released from all obligations, and the contract expires.
6. The issuance of a guarantee does not make the guarantor (bank) liable under
Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, as if they were directly liable for
"government dues."
7. Liability for government dues remains with the person or company that owes them
to the Customs Department.
8. The Customs Department can rely on Section 202 to recover dues from the person
or company directly responsible.
Conclusion: As a result, the appeal filed by the bank was allowed, and the High Court's
LEGALSEARCH.PK
judgment was set aside.
_________________________________________________________________________
Dr. ABDUL NABI, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN, SARIAB ROAD, QUETTA---Petitioner Versus
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, QUETTA---Respondent
Judge(s): Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali

Mazhar, JJ
Case Number: Civil Petition No. 47-Q of 2016

Ratio Decidendi:
(a) Interpretation of Statutes - Deeming Clause:
This case revolves around the interpretation of statutes, specifically the deeming clause
within them. The pertinent law points and facts are as follows:
1. When interpreting a statute, the court is obliged to give effect to deeming provisions
while considering the purpose of a legal fiction.
2. The court should analyze the objectives of a statutory fiction and understand the
legislative intent behind it to avoid any injustice.
3. Legal fictions are created for specific purposes, and their interpretation should
align with these purposes without extending them beyond the legislative intent.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan - Article 199 and "Adequate Remedy":
This aspect deals with the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199
of the Constitution and the concept of an "adequate remedy." The key points are:
1. Article 199 of the Constitution provides extraordinary jurisdiction to the High
Court for addressing unlawfulness or impropriety in actions by executive or
governmental authorities.
2. An "adequate remedy" signifies a remedy that is effective, accessible,
advantageous, and expeditious. It should also be a remedy recognized by law.
LEGALSEARCH.PK
3. To bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, an available remedy
under the law should serve the same purpose as seeking a writ petition.
4. Extraordinary jurisdiction is meant to rectify illegality without delving into
extensive inquiries into disputed facts.
(c) Cantonments Act (II of 1924) - Constitutional Petition and Maintainability:
This aspect involves a constitutional petition under the Cantonments Act, 1924. The
significant details are:
1. The petitioner, a professor at the University of Balochistan, received a notice of
demand for Cantonment Board dues and arrears without being granted the 60%
exemption or rebate provided under S.R.O. 156(I)/2004.
2. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, stating that the petitioner
had not availed the alternate remedy of appeal under section 84 of the
Cantonments Act, 1924.
The petitioner's appeal was allowed based on the following reasons:
a. The petitioner was a public servant.
b. Section 84 of the Act allowed appeals related to tax assessments or refusals to refund

taxes under the Act, which was distinct from the petitioner's claim for exemption under
the S.R.O.
c. The petitioner's writ petition focused on enforcing the S.R.O. and did not challenge any
tax assessment. It involved straightforward interpretation of the S.R.O.'s terms and
conditions without factual disputes.
Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to claim the exemption/rebate under the
S.R.O., and the appeal was allowed.
_________________________________________________________________________
ABDUL WAHID---Appellant Versus The STATE---Respondent
Result: Appeal Dismissed
Date of Decision: 06.06.2023
Mazhar, JJ
LEGALSEARCH.PK
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2020
Ratio Decidendi:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) - Section 302(b) and Reappraisal of Evidence: The
relevant law points and facts are as follows:
1. The case revolves around a murder, and the FIR was lodged one hour and fifty-five
minutes after the incident.
2. The delay in filing the FIR was deemed prompt because the deceased was initially
taken to a hospital situated more than five kilometers away, where he later
succumbed to his injuries, and the matter was reported from the hospital.
3. Promptness of the FIR indicates the truthfulness of the prosecution's case and
rules out deliberation and consultation.
4. The accused was known to both the deceased and another witness, eliminating the
possibility of misidentification.
5. The eyewitnesses provided crucial details about the occurrence, including the date,
time, place, name of the accused, name of witnesses, the manner of the incident,
the weapon used, the location of injuries, and the motive.

6. The eyewitnesses had no enmity or ill-will against the accused, making it unlikely
for them to falsely implicate him.
7. Medical evidence on record corroborated the eyewitness accounts regarding the
nature, timing, location, and impact of the injuries on the deceased.
8. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed.
(b) Criminal Trial - Witnesses Related to the Deceased: In criminal trials, the testimony
of witnesses related to the deceased can be relied upon if their presence at the time of the
incident is natural, their evidence is straightforward, and it inspires confidence. Such
testimony can support the conviction of an accused.
(c) Criminal Trial - Ocular Account and Medical Evidence: When ocular evidence is
deemed trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, it takes precedence over medical evidence.
Ocular evidence alone can be sufficient to sustain the conviction of an accused.
(d) Criminal Trial - Recovery Evidence and Medical Evidence: The value and status of
recovery evidence and medical evidence are corroborative in nature. They alone are not
LEGALSEARCH.PK
sufficient to sustain a conviction.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) - Section 302(b) and Recovery Evidence: The case
highlights the inconsequential nature of recovery evidence when the empty cartridge and
the weapon of offense are sent together to the Forensic Science Agency. Such recovery
evidence was not considered substantial. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
_________________________________________________________________________
CHANCELLOR PRESTON UNIVERSITY, KOHAT and others---Appellants
Versus HABIBULLAH KHAN---Respondent
Result: Appeal Dismissed
Judge(s): Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1833 of 2019

Ratio Decidendi:
In this case involving the Preston University Ordinance (LII of 2002), the Higher
Education Commission Ordinance (LIII of 2002), and the Pakistan Engineering Council
Act (V of 1976), the central issue revolved around an unaccredited university and a
student's claim for damages due to the university's lack of accreditation. Here are the
relevant law points and facts:
1. The appellant university offered various courses, including a Bachelor of
Engineering (B.Eng) program.
2. The university's administration was required to comply with the provisions of the
Preston University Ordinance, 2002, and meet the requirements for establishing its
Faculty of Engineering, as per the Statute proposed by the Board of Governors.
3. Accreditation from relevant authorities, including the Pakistan Engineering
Council ("the Council"), the Higher Education Commission ("HEC"), and
compliance with Engineering Council Regulations for Engineering Education in
Pakistan were essential for the university.
LEGALSEARCH.PK
4. The university did not disclose its accreditation status when admitting students,
including the respondent/plaintiff, as it was not accredited.
5. The respondent discovered the lack of accreditation when the HEC published a list
of unaccredited universities/institutions, prompting inquiries to the university's
administration.
6. The university administration admitted that it was not accredited.
7. The respondent filed a lawsuit, claiming that the university's lack of accreditation
had serious consequences for the recognition of his degree by the HEC and the
Council.
8. The appellant university argued that it was affiliated with the HEC and could issue
engineering degrees.
9. The university belatedly claimed that it had applied for accreditation from the
Council, but the process remained incomplete.
10. Without accreditation, the university was not competent to offer engineering
education or enroll students.
11. Degrees issued by an unaccredited institution would not be recognized by

the HEC, and the Council would not register individuals holding such degrees.
12. The respondent decided to discontinue his education to secure his future,
having lost nine months due to the university's failure to obtain accreditation.
13. The respondent sought damages for the expenses incurred during the period
he was enrolled in the university and other damages as mentioned in his lawsuit.
In conclusion, the court found that the university's lack of accreditation rendered the
degrees worthless, making the respondent's decision to discontinue his education
reasonable. Given that the university's administration had not obtained accreditation
before admitting students, the court upheld the respondent's claim for damages. The
appeal was dismissed.
_________________________________________________________________________
SALMAN ASHRAF---Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
LAHORE and others---Respondents

LEGALSEARCH.PK
Judge(s): Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Case Number: Civil Petition No. 2000-L of 2020

Ratio Decidendi:
In this case concerning the administration of justice, the central issues revolved around
concurrent civil and criminal proceedings and the principles governing the stay of
criminal proceedings. Here are the relevant law points and facts:
1. Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings: In the context of concurrent civil
and criminal proceedings, it is important to recognize that the object of a civil
proceeding is to enforce civil rights and obligations, while that of a criminal
proceeding is to punish the offender for the commission of an offense.
2. Simultaneous Institution of Both Proceedings: Both civil and criminal
proceedings related to the same matter can be instituted and ordinarily proceeded
with simultaneously. There is no inherent bar to the simultaneous institution of
both proceedings.
3. Guiding Principle for Stay: The guiding principle for determining whether to stay
the trial in the criminal proceeding is that when criminal liability is dependent upon
or intimately connected with the result of the civil proceeding, and it is difficult to
draw a line between a bona fide civil claim and the alleged criminal act, the trial in
the criminal proceeding may be postponed until the conclusion of the civil
proceeding.
4. Conditions for Stay: Two conditions must be met for the stay of criminal
proceedings:
a. The subject matter of the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding
must be intimately connected.
b. It should be difficult to distinguish between a bona fide civil claim and the
alleged criminal act.
5. Distinct and Unconnected Matters: If the subject matter of the civil proceeding
and the criminal proceeding are distinct and not intimately connected, or if the civil
LEGALSEARCH.PK
proceeding is instituted mala fide to delay the criminal prosecution, the criminal
proceeding may not be stayed.
6. Standard of Proof: It's important to note that the standard of proof required in
civil and criminal proceedings is different. In civil cases, a mere preponderance of
probability is sufficient to decide disputed facts. In criminal cases, the guilt of the
accused must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
7. Potential for Divergent Judgments: Due to the differing standards of proof, there
is a possibility of giving divergent judgments by civil and criminal courts on facts
that give rise to both civil and criminal liabilities.
In conclusion, while both civil and criminal proceedings can be instituted
simultaneously, the decision to stay the criminal proceedings depends on whether the two
proceedings are intimately connected and whether it is challenging to distinguish a bona
fide civil claim from the alleged criminal act. The standard of proof in civil and criminal
cases differs, potentially leading to different outcomes in concurrent proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________________

NAZIR AHMED---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent
Date of Decision: 01.06.2023
Mazhar, JJ
Case Number: Jail Petition No. 169 of 2021

Ratio Decidendi:
In this case involving the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) and the Explosive
Substances Act (VI of 1908), the key points and facts are as follows:
1. Charges Under Anti-Terrorism Act: The accused was charged with offenses related
to acts of terrorism and the possession of explosives, detonators, and safety fuses, as per
Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
2. LEGALSEARCH.PK
Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution relied on the testimonies of police officials
and witnesses to establish the fact of the recovery of explosive materials. The Bomb
Disposal Commander also provided a report indicating that the detonators and safety
fuses were live.
3. Reliability of Police Witnesses: The testimonies of the police officials and witnesses
were considered reliable, straightforward, and confidence-inspiring. These witnesses had
no apparent animosity or enmity against the accused, suggesting their credibility.
4. Forensic Science Laboratory Report: A sample of the recovered explosive
substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the report from the laboratory
confirmed the presence of explosive material.
5. Conviction and Sentences: Based on the evidence presented, the accused was
convicted, and sentences were imposed.
6. Reappraisal of Evidence: The court conducted a reappraisal of the evidence and
concluded that the testimonies of the police officials and witnesses, along with the
forensic report, supported the prosecution's case.
7. Testimony of Police/Official Witnesses: The court emphasized that the testimony
of official witnesses, such as police officers, is as credible as that of private witnesses,

unless it can be proven that they harbor animus or bias against the accused. Official
witnesses can be relied upon if their testimonies remain unshaken during cross-
examination.
8. Handling Minor Contradictions: The court acknowledged that minor
contradictions or discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence should not be a basis for
rejecting the evidence in its entirety. As long as the material aspects of the evidence ring
true and inspire confidence, minor discrepancies on trivial matters should be ignored.
Only omissions or discrepancies that go to the core of the matter and affect the material
considerations of the case can be used by the defense to challenge the prosecution's case.
Conclusion: In summary, the case involved charges under anti-terrorism and
explosives-related laws. The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the
testimony of police witnesses and the forensic report, to be reliable and upheld the
conviction and sentences of the accused. It emphasized the credibility of police witnesses
and the need to focus on material aspects of the evidence while handling minor
contradictions.
LEGALSEARCH.PK
_________________________________________________________________________
MUHAMMAD RIAZ---Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others---
Respondents
Judge(s): Sardar Tariq Masood and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Case Number: Civil Petition No. 446-L of 2014

Ratio Decidendi:
In this case involving the Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), the key points and facts
are as follows:
1. Suit for Possession Through Pre-emption: The case revolved around a suit for
possession through pre-emption, governed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
2. No Partial Decree in Pre-emption: The court emphasized that, under the doctrine
of pre-emption, no partial decree is possible. Pre-emption is a right of substitution,
and unless the statute conferring the right specifies otherwise, the pre-emptor must
seek pre-emption of the entire subject matter of the sale and pay the full price paid
by the vendee as consideration.
3. Exceptions to Full Pre-emption: There are certain limitations to full pre-emption.
For instance, if the pre-emptor's right extends only to a portion of the property sold
or if part of the property is capable of pre-emption while the other is not, partial
pre-emption on payment of a proportionate price may be allowed as a necessity.
4. Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad: In this case, the petitioner (pre-emptor)
sought to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, which are legal notices
asserting the right of pre-emption. However, the petitioner faced challenges in
providing adequate proof for these notices.
5. Lack of Evidence for Notices: The petitioner produced two witnesses to establish
Talb-i-Ishhad. However, these witnesses did not provide information about the
LEGALSEARCH.PK
date on which the petitioner made the notice. Additionally, they were not aware of
the other signatories to the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad, and they had limited knowledge
of the contents of the notice and its recipients.
6. Failure to Prove Talb-i-Ishhad: The petitioner failed to produce evidence or
witnesses to establish the date of Talb-i-Ishhad. No receipt of acknowledgment due
was presented, and there was no evidence to show that the respondents (vendees)
had refused to accept the notice.
7. Dismissal of Pre-emption Suit: Due to the petitioner's inability to sufficiently
prove the notices of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, the suit for possession
through pre-emption was rightly dismissed by the court.
8. Petition for Leave to Appeal: The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal,
which was subsequently dismissed, and leave was refused.
Conclusion: In summary, this case highlighted the importance of adhering to the
legal requirements and providing proper proof when seeking pre-emption rights. The
petitioner's failure to establish the notices of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad led to
the dismissal of the pre-emption suit.

SCMR July 2023 Part 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCMR July 2023 Part 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.legalsearch.

Dr. MOHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI---

CHANCELLOR PRESTON UNIVERSITY, Suit for

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

SALMAN ASHRAF---Petitioner Versus Concurrent

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

Dr. MOHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI---Petitioner Versus Khawaja KHALID

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1208

Result: Appeal Accepted

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 19.06.2023.

Judge(s): Qazi Faez Isa and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

Case Number: Civil Petition No. 3203 of 2017

amenable to writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the case involved fundamental rights,

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1232

Result: Appeal Accepted

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 25.05.2023.

Judge(s): Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

Case Number: Civil Petition No. 2537 of 2020

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

JAMALUDDIN and another---Petitioners Versus The STATE---Respondent

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1243

Result: Bail Granted

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 29.05.2023.

Case Number: Criminal Petitions Nos. 41-K and 42-K of 2023

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1247

Result: Petition Dismissed

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 07.06.2022.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan - Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies:

(c) Interim Order - Principles:

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

ALLIED BANK LIMITED---Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1258

Result: Appeal Accepted

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 30.05.2023.

Judge(s): Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 196-P of 2014

is a continuing guarantee and does not specify a date or event of expiry.

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1267

Result: Appeal Accepted

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 21.03.2023.

Judge(s): Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali

Case Number: Civil Petition No. 47-Q of 2016

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1278

Result: Appeal Dismissed

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 06.06.2023

the weapon used, the location of injuries, and the motive.

Citation: 2023 SCMR 1284

Result: Appeal Dismissed

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Decision: 10.03.2023.

Judge(s): Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1833 of 2019

Intelligent Solution for Legal Research