Hk Legal Times

Saturday, June 27, 2026

BOARD of REVENUE

2026 SCMR 605

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan and Aamer Farooq, JJ

SENIOR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others ---Petitioners

Versus

ABDUL SHAKOOR (Deceased) through I.Rs. ---Respondent

C.P.L.A. No. 1718-L of 2015, decided on 24th April, 2025.

(Against the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P.No.4218 of 2008).

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---

-S. 30---Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8---Review-Maxim audi alteram partem-Judicial and executive authorities---Proprietary rights---Board of Revenue was aggrieved of review of order passed in judicial side during executive proceedings, whereby grant of proprietary rights were recalled---Validity---Board of Revenue, exercising its powers on judicial side, granted proprietary rights in land to respondents---Board of Revenue had no powers on administrative side to set at naught the judicial orders, even more so when they had attained finality---Senior Member, Board of Revenue, had no jurisdiction to pass order in question which had been challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction before High Court, for the same purports to have been passed in exercise of suo motu review jurisdiction of the urisdiction of the Board Rev Revenue---By virtue of the provisions of Section 8 of Board of Re d of Revenue Act,1957 no such power vested in the Board---If suo motu review was to be exercised by the Board for rectifying decision of a Member suffering from incorrect interpretation and application of law or non-appreciation of facts, it would lead to an unending cycle of litigation---Such order was also illegal as it had been passed in disregard of principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard, as embodied in the maxim, audi alteram partem---General letter of Senior Member had set aside judicial order of Member (Judicial) through an administrative order-Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court who appreciated law and had rightly adjudicated upon the matter and passed order in question within the four corners of law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Basher Ahmed (Deceased) through LRs. v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Lahore and others 2022 SCMR 620; Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore PLD 1971 SC 61; Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 589; Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others 1991 SCMR 2307; Commissioner of Income Tax East Pakistan v. Fazlur Rahman PLD 1964 SC 410; Chuttan and another v. Sufaid Khan and another 1987 SCMR 503; The University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 and Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 673 rel.

Ahmad Awais Qazi, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Petitioners. M.A. Ghaffar Ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Checque of security

سیکیورٹی چیک کا قانونی مقام

⚖️ ضمانتی چیک پر دفعہ 489-F کا اطلاق نہیں ہوتا — سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا اہم فیصلہ (2024 SCMR 1567)

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے 2024 SCMR 1567 (Muhammad Anwar v. The State) میں ایک نہایت اہم قانونی اصول واضح کیا ہے کہ محض کسی شخص کے پاس چیک کا ہونا یا چیک کا اجرا ہونا، بذاتِ خود تعزیراتِ پاکستان کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت جرم ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں۔

عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قرار دیا کہ دفعہ 489-F کے اطلاق کے لیے درج ذیل بنیادی عناصر کا موجود ہونا ضروری ہے:

✅ چیک بدنیتی (Dishonest Intent) کے ساتھ جاری کیا گیا ہو۔

✅ چیک کسی قرض، واجب الادا رقم یا قانونی مالی ذمہ داری (Obligation) کی ادائیگی کے لیے دیا گیا ہو۔

✅ چیک بینک سے ڈس آنر (Dishonour) ہو گیا ہو۔

سپریم کورٹ نے مقدمہ کے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد یہ مشاہدہ کیا کہ متعلقہ چیک کسی قرض یا مالی ذمہ داری کی ادائیگی کے لیے جاری نہیں کیا گیا تھا بلکہ معاہدے کے تحت بطور ضمانت (Security/Guarantee) دیا گیا تھا۔ مزید یہ کہ شکایت کنندہ یہ ثابت کرنے میں بھی ناکام رہا کہ اس نے ملزم کو رقم ادا کی تھی یا کوئی ایسی مالی ذمہ داری موجود تھی جس کی ادائیگی کے لیے چیک جاری کیا گیا ہو۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جب چیک صرف بطور سکیورٹی یا گارنٹی دیا گیا ہو اور اس کے بدلے کوئی قابلِ ادائیگی قرض یا ذمہ داری ثابت نہ ہو تو دفعہ 489-F کے ضروری اجزاء پورے نہیں ہوتے۔ چنانچہ سپریم کورٹ نے ملزم کی قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت (Pre-Arrest Bail) منظور کرتے ہوئے اسے ریلیف فراہم کیا۔

قانونی نکتہ:

"ضمانتی (Security) چیک اور ادائیگی (Payment) کے چیک میں فرق کو ہمیشہ مدنظر رکھا جائے گا۔ صرف چیک کا ڈس آنر ہونا دفعہ 489-F کے تحت جرم قائم کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں، بلکہ اس کا کسی واجب الادا قرض یا مالی ذمہ داری سے تعلق ثابت کرنا بھی ضروری ہے۔"

📖 حوالہ: 2024 SCMR 1567

Muhammad Anwar v. The State

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان۔

Friday, May 22, 2026

Check Meter

Check Meter چیک میٹر

https://youtu.be/OuPczSIEIpw?si=zp767zSq-3ncSTGI

Sunday, May 17, 2026

Voluntary Said

https://youtu.be/N42luhBJQiw

Legal Tv hd

P L D 2024 Sindh 289

Cross-examination.

•√Voluntary statement---Scope---Voluntary statement by a witness in cross-examination has no legal evidentiary value---Witness is not permitted to foist into his answer, any statement/material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him---Such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and introduction of such evidence is against the rule of re-examination as contemplated under Art.133 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

•2003 Y L R 406

Voluntary statement by a witness in cross‑examination has no legal evidentiary value‑‑‑Witness is not permitted to foist into his answer statement any material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him‑‑‑Such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and the introduction of such evidence shall be against the rule of re-examination as contemplated under Art.133 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984‑‑‑Principles.

•According to Article 133 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984, the order of examination of witnesses has been set down. The witnesses shall be first examined‑in‑chief and then if the adverse party so desires shall be cross‑examined. The re‑examination, however, is limited to the explanation of matters referred to in‑cross‑examination and if permission in this respect is granted by the Court. It would thus, be seen that the voluntary statement by a witness in cross-examination has no legal evidentiary value. It is not permissible for a witness to foist into his answer statement any material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him. In jurisprudence, such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and the introduction of such evidence shall be against the rule of re‑examination as contemplated under Article 133 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984.

Saturday, January 3, 2026

Strike by Lawyers

2023 SCMR 421

Strikes by lawyers causing delay in of trial Breach of Fundamental rights of accused --- Accused person like any other has the inalienable right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law ' but if advocates strike and trials are postponed this constitutional right of the accused is negated.
If the trial of a detained accused is delayed on account of strike (s), and subsequently , the accused is acquitted then the additional incarceration suffered by the accused would have been detrimental to his liberty.
•••√Prestige of the legal profession should not be undermined by advocates who strike for a lesser cause than to protect and defend the Constitution in the public interest.
•Courts are the only place where it is believed that justice is administered, and that is why people approach them to get justice and their rights. But, regrettably in Pakistan, the situation is contrary to it, for there is neither the rule of law nor is quick justice provided to the common man.
•Unfortunately, despite the backlog of millions of cases and the judiciary’s ranking at 130 out of 139 in the World Justice Project Ranking, the clashes between judges and the bar members have not reduced.
•The courts in Malir are a case in point, where the strike by bar against the conduct and administration of a district judge recently led to a halt in proceedings in all cases. Such a rift between the bench and the bar affects only the people who, despite their harsh economic conditions, take time out and wait outside the courts from 8am, hoping that it would be the day when they would get at least an inch closer to getting justice. But that does not happen often.
• 2023 SCMR 421, held that the strikes by “lawyers for their personal means consequently injures the fundamental rights i.e. right of due process of law, fair trial, liberty, right of equal protection of law guaranteed by the Constitution, of an accused, who is behind the bar, are violated”.
•Besides, it also held that the “prestige of the legal profession should not be undermined by the advocates who strike for a lesser cause than to protect and defend the Constitution in the public interest”.
•The lawyers should refrain from holding strikes, and, if they do, the authorities should take necessary steps to overcome this issue in the larger public interest.