Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
- Shahbaz Khan Versus Municipal Corporation1991 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Versus WAPDA1991 SCMR 1290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
- Qabul Khan Versus Shah Nawaz1991 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Din Versus Siraj Din1991 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah Bhutta Versus Niaz Ahmad1991 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddiq Versus R.M.S. Janjua , Khaqan Baber, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record1991 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- Government of Balochistan Versus Amir Jan1991 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
- Rahim Gul Versus Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.1991 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding seniority between two Assistant Professors in the Health Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal correctly determined seniority and whether the service appeal was competent despite the respondent's failure to exhaust departmental remedies under Section 22 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in its finding on the competency of the appeal. The Court established that the Provincial Government is subordinate to the Governor, and therefore, a representation invoking the Governor's pleasure under Section 22 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, is a mandatory prerequisite before approaching the Service Tribunal. However, on the merits, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that seniority must be determined grade-wise rather than speciality-wise under the relevant absorption rules, and that experience in a specific speciality like Orthopaedics cannot be substituted for experience in General Surgery for promotion purposes.
Questions settled- Is a representation under Section 22 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, a mandatory prerequisite before filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the Provincial Government act as the final authority for the purpose of departmental representations, or is it subordinate to the Governor?
- Can experience in a specific medical speciality be substituted for experience in General Surgery for promotion purposes?
- Should seniority of civil servants be determined grade-wise or speciality-wise under the Khyber Medical College and Hayat Shaheed Teaching Hospital (Absorption of Employees) Rules, 1976?
- Muhammad Akbar Versus Sahib Khatoon1991 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the succession to the estate of Alam Khan, specifically regarding the legitimacy of Muzaffar Khan as the son of Rangu and his subsequent entitlement to inherit. The core legal questions were whether a previous judgment from 1916 operated as res judicata in the current proceedings and whether, under Islamic Law, Muzaffar Khan could be legally treated as the son of Rangu and brother of the deceased. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Muzaffar Khan’s heirs, but the District Judge reversed this, citing the 1916 judgment as res judicata. While the High Court initially differed, the Supreme Court held that the previous judgment indeed constituted res judicata, as the issue of Muzaffar Khan’s paternity had been directly and substantially decided by a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties or their predecessors. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the principle of res judicata barred the re-litigation of the paternity issue, thereby upholding the findings that Muzaffar Khan was not the legitimate son of Rangu.
Questions settled- Does a previous judgment regarding the paternity of an individual operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation involving the same parties or their successors?
- Can a court re-examine an issue of fact that has been directly and substantially decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a former suit between the same parties?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to succession disputes where the underlying issue of lineage was previously adjudicated?
- Zafar Hussain Baloch Versus Ejaz Ahmed1991 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the brother of the deceased against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which acquittal was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below based on doubtful ocular testimony and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the explanation offered by the eye-witnesses regarding their presence at the scene of the occurrence at a late hour was dubious and that the twenty-four-hour delay in reporting the matter remained unexplained. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent orders of acquittal resting on plausible assessments of weak ocular evidence and delayed reporting.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
- Does an unexplained delay of twenty-four hours in lodging the First Information Report weaken the prosecution case?
- Is the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence subject to strict scrutiny when the explanation for their presence is dubious?
- Shaukat Hayat Versus The State1991 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously refused leave to appeal against the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record, including misstatements of facts regarding witness testimony, the recovery of evidence, and medical findings. The Court examined each contention against the trial record. It held that while certain typographical errors regarding names were present and required correction, the substantive factual findings were supported by the evidence on record, including witness depositions and post-mortem reports. The Court affirmed that findings based on the testimony of medical experts and prosecution witnesses do not constitute errors apparent on the record. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the arguments presented, as the alleged discrepancies did not prejudice the petitioner or constitute a miscarriage of justice. The review petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that review jurisdiction is restricted to rectifying manifest errors rather than re-evaluating evidence.
Questions settled- Does a typographical error in a judgment constitute an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review?
- Can factual findings based on medical evidence and witness testimony be re-examined in a review petition?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the alleged errors are supported by the evidence on the trial record?
- Muhammad Bakhsh Versus Allah Bakhsh1990 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal Shah Versus Muhammad Din1990 SCMR 868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Versus Sardar Begum1990 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the transfer of an evacuee property, House No. HQ355, Rawalpindi. The dispute originated from conflicting claims over the property's transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, involving multiple parties, including the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Ch. Muhammad Nawaz, and the respondent, Mst. Sardar Begum. The core legal questions involve whether the 'informer application' filed by the respondent had lapsed due to the enactment of Ordinance II of 1962, which amended the relevant statutory provisions, and whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the res judicata effect of a prior Supreme Court judgment (PLD 1966 SC 512) concerning the status of Ch. Muhammad Nawaz. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contentions raised by the petitioners involve questions of substantial public importance requiring final determination by the Court. The Court held that the legal status of the informer application and the binding nature of prior judgments on the parties necessitate a definitive ruling by the apex court.
Questions settled- Does an informer application filed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 lapse upon the amendment of Section 10 by Ordinance II of 1962?
- Is a party bound by a prior Supreme Court judgment if they were merely a proper party rather than a necessary party in the earlier proceedings?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact arrived at by a Settlement Commissioner based on documentary evidence?
- Abdul Majid Versus District Magistrate, Loralai1990 SCMR 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Constitution Petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of his local residence certificate by the District Magistrate, Loralai. The certificate was initially revoked on the grounds that the petitioner's father owned property in Punjab, voted in Taunsa Sharif, and that the local certificate was obtained through misrepresentation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the factors relied upon by the District Magistrate, holding that the acquisition of property as a matter of convenience is not a valid legal ground for cancellation, especially when such property was ancestral and long-held, and that the authorities failed to properly weigh the continuous intention of the family to remain permanent residents alongside practical considerations regarding scarce educational resources and unutilized quota seats. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the cancellation of the local certificate, while permitting a fresh inquiry if deemed necessary.
Questions settled- Whether the acquisition of immovable property as a matter of convenience constitutes a valid legal ground for the cancellation of a local residence certificate?
- Does the exercise of voting rights in another district negate a person's bona fide local residency status where ancestral property is held?
- Can executive authorities disregard practical considerations regarding unutilized educational quota seats when deciding on the cancellation of local certificates?
- Abdul Shakoor Versus Nasira Shaheen1990 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher Versus Sachal1990 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing a criminal revision petition against the conviction and sentence of respondent No. 1 under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after the trial court accepted his plea of grave and sudden provocation. The core legal question is whether the courts below erred in accepting the defence plea and relying on hearsay evidence of prosecution witnesses rather than direct eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court held that there is prima facie force in the contention that the evidence relied upon in support of the defence was inadmissible hearsay and could not be preferred over the direct testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses. Consequently, the Court granted leave to consider whether the lower courts accepted the defence plea on sound principles for the safe administration of justice, thereby setting aside the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the courts below erred in accepting a defence plea based on hearsay evidence?
- Can hearsay testimony of police and formal witnesses be preferred over direct eyewitness accounts in a murder trial?
- Whether the conviction under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence led at the trial?
- Muhammad Ali Versus State1990 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali Versus State1990 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Niaz Muhammad Versus Election Tribunal Peshawar1990 SCMR 1727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the findings of the Election Tribunal and declared the election of the appellant to the Peshawar Municipal Corporation void, ordering a re-election. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the factual findings of the Election Tribunal and declaring the election void due to severe irregularities and disruption at the polling station. The Supreme Court held that where the polling was interrupted, ballot boxes were taken into custody by the police, and voters were prevented from exercising their right of franchise due to disorder, the High Court's intervention in setting aside the election was legally sound and not open to exception. The key principle laid down is that high courts may interfere with election tribunal findings under constitutional jurisdiction when there are grave violations of election laws and procedures, such as the failure to hold peaceful elections and protect ballot boxes.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can set aside findings of fact arrived at by an Election Tribunal in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the disruption of polling and taking away of ballot boxes by the police justify declaring an election void?
- Whether the failure of the Presiding Officer and Returning Officer to comply with election rules warrants a re-election?
- Director, Food, Punjab Versus Rashid Ahmad, Foodgrains Supervisor1990 SCMR 1446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
- Kabir Ahmad Khan Versus Government of Punjab1990 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta Versus State1990 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif Versus State1990 SCMR 1300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed Versus Asghar Ali1990 SCMR 1286 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 4-4-1987, whereby the respondent Asghar Ali's conviction for the murder of his wife was maintained, but his sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life along with a reduction in fine. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of unknown or concealed motive, while allegedly ignoring that the victim was heavily pregnant with twins who also died as a result of the act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the multiple loss of lives and the propriety of the sentence reduction warranted a detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment back to death, noting the presence of supporting medical evidence and precedent.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the ground of concealed or unknown motive?
- Does the death of unborn twins along with the pregnant mother constitute a relevant factor for the quantum of sentence in a murder trial?
- Abdur Rashid Versus Muhammad Yusaf1990 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal matter where the petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's acquittal of the respondent, who had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of a blacksmith. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appellate judgment, which acquitted the respondent based on a re-appraisal of evidence and a finding that the prosecution's case was not established beyond reasonable doubt, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was based on a sound evaluation of the evidence, noting that the prosecution had attempted to bolster its case with uncorroborated motives and an extra-judicial confession not mentioned in the initial report, alongside procedural irregularities by the investigating officer. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with an appellate court's acquittal unless the appraisal of evidence was perverse or in flagrant violation of established legal principles. Finding no such error, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the principle that an appellate court's factual findings, when plausible and not perverse, remain undisturbed.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an appellate court's acquittal of an accused?
- Does the failure to record a motive or an extra-judicial confession in the First Information Report undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence when the High Court has already weighed the prosecution and defence versions?
- Shahida Versus Abdul Qayyum1990 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition against an acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered Muhammad Saeed, the husband of the petitioner, by shooting him while he slept in his courtyard. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the ocular testimony of the petitioner and her sister unreliable. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that she and her sister were natural witnesses, the FIR was lodged promptly, and the respondents were named therein. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the reliability of the witnesses and the circumstances of the occurrence. Finding that the arguments raised in support of the petition required further examination, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the respondents. The judgment primarily addresses the threshold for granting leave to appeal against an acquittal where the credibility of ocular testimony is contested.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal order?
- Is the prompt lodging of an FIR a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of ocular testimony in a murder case?
- Can the presence of a relative at the scene of a crime be considered sufficient to establish them as a natural witness?
- Ghulam Sarwar Versus State1990 SCMR 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
- Subhanullah Versus Rafia Afzal1989 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Versus Ijaz Ahmad1989 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered the deceased due to a dispute involving a Panchayat and illicit relations. The trial court had convicted one respondent, but the High Court acquitted him, finding the eye-witness accounts unreliable and the motive unproven. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal, based on its assessment of evidence, warranted Supreme Court interference. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the High Court had meticulously examined the evidence, including the credibility of the eye-witnesses and the alleged motive. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, as no substantial question of law regarding the appreciation of evidence was raised, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has properly appreciated the evidence?
- Is the failure to produce a key witness who allegedly carried a light source a valid ground for doubting eye-witness testimony?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the motive for the crime is not proven?
- Nazir Ahmad Versus Boota1989 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Wazir Khan Versus State1989 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, originating from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, arises from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Karim Khan, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns whether a retracted judicial confession can form the sole basis for a conviction, and whether the appellant's actions fell within the exception of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court held that a retracted confession, once established to be voluntary and true, requires no corroboration and can legally sustain a conviction. However, reading the confession as a whole, the Court found that the murder was committed under grave and sudden provocation after the deceased persistently attempted to force sodomy upon the appellant, thus altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that a voluntary and true retracted confession is legally sufficient for a conviction, and persistent attempts at unnatural assault can constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
- Does the retraction of a confession affect whether it was voluntarily made and true?
- Does persistent attempted sodomy constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Shams Din Versus Jalal Din1989 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Niamat Ali Versus Dewan Jiram Das1989 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hamiduddin Versus Feroz Ahmed1989 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition regarding a land consolidation scheme. The dispute arose after the Collector confirmed a consolidation scheme, which was subsequently remanded by the Additional Commissioner. Following the remand, the Collector allotted specific Khasra numbers to the respondents. The petitioners challenged these proceedings, alleging they were not parties to the initial remand order and that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners had participated in the remand proceedings before the Collector and failed to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no grounds for interference. The Court held that by participating in the remand proceedings before the Collector, the petitioners effectively waived their objections regarding the initial remand order, and that the failure to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order before the Board of Revenue precluded them from raising these issues in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does participation in remand proceedings before a Collector constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the initial remand order?
- Can a petitioner challenge an order of an Additional Commissioner in a writ petition if they failed to challenge that order before the Board of Revenue?
- Is a party entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction if they have participated in the proceedings they subsequently seek to challenge?
- Enginccring-in-Chief Branch Versus Jalaluddin1989 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad Versus State1989 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1908-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from Criminal Appeal No.7(S) of 1987 and Jail Petition No.22-R(S) of 1987 directed against the Federal Shariat Court judgment dated 19-2-1987, concerning convictions for Zina-bil-Jabr and abduction. The core legal question was whether the actions of the principal accused constituted abduction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 or merely taking or enticing a woman under Section 16 thereof, given that he had deceived passersby by posing as a police constable taking the victim to a police station. The Supreme Court held that the accused committed an offence under Section 16 rather than Section 11 because the victim was taken away through deceit rather than kidnapping or abduction as contemplated under Section 11. The key principle laid down is that where a person takes a woman away under the false pretext of official police action, the act falls within the purview of Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 rather than Section 11.
Questions settled- Whether taking a woman away under the false pretext of police action constitutes abduction under Section 11 or enticement under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 apply when a victim is deceived into accompanying an accused who falsely claims to be a police constable?
- When can an appellate court alter a conviction from Section 11 to Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Nizam Din Versus Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala1989 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the validity of an allotment of land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal question was whether a formal order of transfer is required to move unsatisfied land units from one estate to another when both estates fall within the same Patwar Circle. The appellant argued, based on a prior administrative judgment, that no such formal transfer order was necessary. The High Court had rejected this, holding that the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme mandates specific procedures for such transfers, and that the administrative judgment relied upon by the appellant lacked the force of statutory instructions. The Supreme Court, relying on its recent precedent in Feroze Khan v. Ali Haider (1987 SCMR 197), affirmed the High Court's decision. It held that the instructions in the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme regarding the transfer of units are mandatory and cannot be overridden by administrative interpretations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that an allotment obtained without the requisite formal transfer order is invalid and fraudulent.
Questions settled- Is a formal order of transfer required to move unsatisfied land units from one estate to another within the same Patwar Circle under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Does an administrative judgment by a Rehabilitation Commissioner have the force of statutory instructions to override the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can an allotment of land be considered fraudulently obtained if the required transfer of units between estates was not formally ordered?
- Nek Muhammad Versus Additional Settlement Commissioner1989 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three civil appeals arose from an order of the High Court refusing to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction against an Additional Settlement Commissioner's order cancelling land allotments. The appellants, claiming as sole surviving heirs of verified refugee claimants, had their temporary allotments adjusted against those claims. The authorities below cancelled the allotments holding them fraudulent and lacking proof of succession. The core legal question was whether material evidence regarding inheritance and pedigree tables had been ignored by the Settlement authorities, and whether the High Court erred in refusing constitutional intervention. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner failed to consider crucial material evidence, including pedigree tables from records received from India and connecting oral evidence. The appeals were allowed, the impugned decisions set aside, and the case remitted for fresh consideration in light of established precedent regarding settlement claims and successor allotments.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can refuse constitutional jurisdiction when material evidence has been ignored by a Settlement Commissioner?
- Does the Rehabilitation Scheme contemplate an allotment in favour of a deceased right-holder?
- Are successors entitled to allotments of land based on verified claims of deceased refugees upon establishing their pedigree?
- Federation of Pakistan Versus Zaki Ahmad Siddiqi1989 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Habib Versus State1989 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction under the narcotics laws. The petitioner, Muhammad Habib, was convicted by the trial court for possessing charas and heroin, receiving a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and a fine. The Federal Shariat Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the arrest, specifically the police's failure to apprehend the petitioner's alleged accomplice, Rehmatullah, who was implicated in the same transaction. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was sound, the petitioner was entitled to further leniency because the police acted unfairly by allowing the co-accused to escape while shifting the entire culpability onto the petitioner. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and further reduced the substantive sentence from three years to two years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the other penalties. The judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing should reflect the fairness of the investigation and the totality of the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence on appeal if the police investigation is found to be unfair regarding the treatment of co-accused?
- Is a sentence of rigorous imprisonment subject to reduction if the prosecution fails to apprehend all implicated parties?
- Bakhat Baidar Versus State1989 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haleem Versus Muhammad Amin Khan1989 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- Noon Sugar Mills Ltd., Bhalwal Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi1989 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
- Tahir Mahmood Versus Zainab Khatoon1989 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Khalid Versus Province of Sind1989 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority Versus Mobashir Ahmaol1989 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Khan Bahadur Versus State1989 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar Versus Abdul Ghafoor1989 SCMR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-28Read full judgment →
- Mir Akbar Versus State1989 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ahmad Versus Wazir Din1989 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 15-5-1980 to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerned whether the identity and non-evacuee status of the disputed property could be re-litigated after the matter had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the question of identity and the status of the property as non-evacuee had already been finally determined through previous rounds of litigation culminating in the dismissal of a prior petition by the Supreme Court, and therefore the Settlement authorities could not re-open the issue. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that final judicial determinations regarding property status and identity cannot be re-agitated in subsequent collateral proceedings before administrative authorities.
Questions settled- Can the identity and status of a non-evacuee property be re-agitated before settlement authorities after the matter has been finally decided by the superior courts?
- Whether administrative authorities like the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can re-open an issue already settled by a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Zahoor Ahmad Versus Shahbaz Khan1989 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Sabri Versus State1989 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Noor Hassan Versus State1989 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a murder case. The petitioner, Noor Hassan, was charged alongside co-accused for the murder of Fazal Rahu. The prosecution alleged that while the petitioner was unarmed, he instigated the primary assailant, who was armed with a hatchet, to complete the act and further participated by snatching the weapon from the complainant. The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, arguing that his case was identical to that of two other co-accused who had been granted bail. The Supreme Court examined the specific role attributed to the petitioner and distinguished his circumstances from those of the co-accused, noting that the latter had received bail based on medical evidence. Finding no justification to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the denial of bail to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the principle of parity apply when the role attributed to the petitioner differs from that of co-accused who have been granted bail?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail where the petitioner's specific role in the crime is distinct from co-accused?
- Zafar Qureshi Versus Maqsoodul Hassan1989 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Pak Trade Affiliation Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone1989 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Versus Begum Azfar Saeed1989 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shafiq Versus State1989 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Habib Versus Sardar Ali1989 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to the recruitment process for the post of Senior Translation Officer. The petitioner, who held an M.A. degree in English and Urdu, protested against the selection test, which consisted solely of translation passages between Urdu and Arabic, arguing that it unfairly excluded candidates lacking an M.A. in Arabic despite the advertisement allowing applicants with M.A. degrees in English, Arabic, or Urdu. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed the petitioner's claim on the grounds that, by refusing to take the test, the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the selection. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the test was neither legal nor fair. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner's grievance was understandable, the determination of the nature and content of test questions falls within the discretion of the relevant authorities. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the authorities' action and declined to interfere with the recruitment process under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a candidate who refuses to participate in a selection test have locus standi to challenge the recruitment process?
- Is the determination of the nature and content of a selection test a matter within the discretion of the recruiting authorities?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the content of a recruitment test under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Pakistan Engineering Consultants Versus Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1989 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court in an Intra-Court Appeal concerning a contract for a project modernization between Pakistan Engineering Consultants and Pakistan International Airlines. The project faced delays, and the Airlines annulled the contract, seeking to encash a bank guarantee provided for a mobilization advance and a performance bond. The firm filed a suit for damages and a permanent injunction against the encashment. The High Court partly granted relief, restraining the encashment of the performance bond and permitting partial encashment of the bank guarantee. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly regarding interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in balancing claims and counter-claims at the interim stage was neither arbitrary nor insupportable, declining to interfere with interlocutory orders where questions of fact require a full trial. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting or refusing interim relief during the pendency of a suit?
- Can a bank guarantee given against a mobilization advance be restrained from encashment by way of temporary injunction?
- Whether a dissolved firm can carry on a contract entered into before its dissolution under section 47 of the Partnership Act?
- Jaffar Ebrahim & Co. Ltd. Versus Deputy Controller, Exchange Control, State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1989 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four appeals challenging the legality of two circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. These circulars required importers of Steel Plate Sheets, who were permitted to pay freight charges in local currency, to surrender bonus vouchers equivalent to 30% of the freight charges. The appellants argued that the State Bank lacked the legal authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to issue such directions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the circulars were within the State Bank's competence under Section 20(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, as the Act's preamble empowers the Bank to regulate dealings in foreign exchange to secure the economic and financial interests of Pakistan. The Court further held that the State Bank could validly transfer the liability for bonus vouchers to the importers who benefited from the facility of paying freight in local currency. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellants, having availed themselves of the facility, were estopped from challenging the circulars' legality.
Questions settled- Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to issue circulars requiring importers to surrender bonus vouchers?
- Can an importer who has availed of a facility granted by the State Bank later challenge the legality of the conditions attached to that facility?
- Are circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan to conserve foreign exchange consistent with the objectives of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act?
- Ishaquc Masih Versus State1989 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahman Versus Said Muhammad1989 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Versus Ghulam Muhammad1989 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of waiver, but the first appellate court decreed it, and the High Court maintained the decree in second appeal. The core legal questions relate to whether the appellant became an owner in the estate through a prior transaction involving a tube-well and Kotha, and whether the suit was barred as one for partial pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the prior transaction pertained only to movable property (the superstructure and machinery) rather than immovable property or the underlying sites, and therefore did not make the appellant an owner in the estate nor render the subsequent suit one for partial pre-emption. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the respondent's superior right of pre-emption as an owner in the estate was validly established and that the separate, earlier transaction was not pre-emptible.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of a tube-well superstructure and Kotha without the underlying site confer the status of an owner in the estate for pre-emption purposes?
- Whether the failure to pre-empt a separate transaction involving movable property renders a subsequent pre-emption suit regarding land liable to dismissal for partial pre-emption?
- Can a transaction regarding machinery and a superstructure with no registered deed for the land site be regarded as affecting rights in immovable property?
- Shahid Mahmood Versus Controller of Examination1989 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
- Reference by President of Pakistan Versus Reference by President of Pakistan1989 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad Versus Zubaida Begum1989 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the context of a civil petition for leave to appeal. The nature of the proceedings involved a challenge related to constitutional petitions pending before the Baluchistan High Court. The core legal question concerned the appropriate procedural handling and consolidation of related constitutional petitions, specifically Constitutional Petition No. 290 of 1988 and Constitutional Petition No. 291 of 1988. Upon consideration of a prior order passed in Civil Petition No. 107-Q of 1988, which had already remanded the case to the High Court with directions to dispose of the aforementioned constitutional petitions on their merits and to accelerate the hearing process, the petitioner chose not to pursue the current petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court, acknowledging the petitioner's stance and the existing remand order, disposed of the petition accordingly. The judgment serves as a procedural order reflecting the principle that where a higher court has already issued comprehensive directions for the disposal and consolidation of pending matters in a lower court, redundant petitions may be withdrawn and disposed of in accordance with those established directions.
Questions settled- Can a petition be disposed of as not pressed when a prior order has already remanded the underlying matter to the High Court for decision on merits?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to dispose of a petition when the relief sought is covered by a previous remand order in a related case?
- Mahmood Versus State1989 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. but reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in attributing the murder to the appellant while giving the benefit of doubt to his acquitted brother, and whether the substitution of the death sentence to life imprisonment was proper. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appraisal of evidence was sound, noting that the appellant had a direct motive arising from the deceased's detention of the appellant's wife, and that the fatal shot was fired following a sudden altercation without preplanning. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in attributing the responsibility of the murder to the appellant while acquitting his co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt?
- Is a sentence of death properly substituted with life imprisonment when the homicide occurs during a sudden altercation arising from family disputes over detained spouses?
- Does a delay in holding a post-mortem examination necessarily vitiate the prosecution's ocular and medical evidence?
- Qamar Din Versus Umar Din1989 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Khan Versus Additional Commissioner. Revenue, Multan Fazal Miran Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court & Zaki ud Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate on Record & Iqbal Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Chaudhry Advocate on Record & Malik A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate on Record , Ma. Qadri, Advocate on Record1989 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Mussarrat Bashirul Hassan Versus Muhammad Salim1989 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- Amir Abdullah Versus Superintendent of Police1989 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Abmad Versus General Manager (Distribution), WAPDA1989 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab Versus Abdul Jalil Khan1989 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Versus Chairman, WAPDA1989 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din Versus Sultan Ahmad Awan1989 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- Namdar Versus Ali Zulqarnain, Additional Settlement Commissioner1989 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Commercial Bank Ltd. Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1989 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail Versus Assistant Commissioner Collector1989 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
- Chiragh Din Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1989 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- Secretary to Government of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Nasir1989 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalil Versus Muhammad Luqman1989 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- Umar Din Versus Khan1989 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Said Rahman Versus State1989 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Raees Versus The State1989 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of three appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerned whether the appraisement of evidence by the lower courts conformed to established principles of criminal justice, specifically regarding material discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) and a subsequent private complaint. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR was promptly lodged and consistent with medical evidence regarding the principal accused, Muhammad Raees and Saghir Ahmad. However, the court found that the role attributed to the third appellant, Muhammad Khan, in the private complaint—alleging he was armed with a stick—was an afterthought designed to align with post-mortem findings of blunt weapon injuries. Consequently, the Court held that while the ocular testimony against the principal accused remained reliable, the third appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The convictions of Muhammad Raees and Saghir Ahmad were upheld, while the conviction of Muhammad Khan was set aside, establishing that material improvements in a private complaint intended to reconcile medical evidence undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case against specific accused persons.
Questions settled- Does a material discrepancy between the FIR and a subsequent private complaint regarding the role of an accused warrant the benefit of the doubt?
- Can ocular testimony be partially relied upon when other parts of the prosecution's case are found to be an afterthought?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the role attributed to an accused in a private complaint appears to be fabricated to match post-mortem findings?
- Ubaidullah Versus Sher Mohammad1989 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Versus Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue1989 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali Versus Settlement Commissioner (Land)1989 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Khan Versus Azizuddin1989 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Gulzar Alias Gulzari Versus State1989 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
- Suleman Versus State1989 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court as a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Sind High Court declining pre-trial bail to the petitioners facing trial under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 114, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific roles and injuries attributed to them. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that petitioner Sadoro, who was armed with a lathi and allegedly caused simple injuries not on vital parts, made out a case for bail, especially considering the background of the quarrel arising from crop damage by cattle and the State not opposing his bail. However, the bail request for petitioner Khamo, who allegedly used a firearm, was dismissed. The Court laid down the principle that where an accused's role is limited to causing simple injuries arising from a sudden quarrel over cattle trespassing, and the offence arguably falls under a lesser penal provision, bail may be granted pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused assigned a lathi blow resulting in simple injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail when the incident arose from a sudden quarrel over cattle damage?
- Does the use of a firearm in an alleged criminal transaction disentitle an accused from receiving post-arrest bail?
- Muhammad Ashraf Versus Abdul Hameed1989 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Mir Versus Fakhar Jehan Begum1989 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Fazle Haq Versus State1989 SCMR 2071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court's order dismissing the pre-trial bail application of the petitioner, a retired Lieutenant General and former Caretaker Chief Minister, who was accused along with others under sections 302 and 120-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for involvement in the murder of a religious leader. The core legal question concerned whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty, particularly given that the sole prosecution evidence linking him to the conspiracy rested on the statement of an approver concerning a meeting on a specific date when a co-accused was allegedly abroad. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the investigating agency failed to properly examine the defence plea and travel documents challenging the approver's veracity. The Court laid down the principle that investigating agencies have a duty to find the truth rather than prematurely commit to a view, and where tangible evidence creates a plausible doubt regarding the prosecution's material assertions at the bail stage, the accused is entitled to bail for further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when tangible evidence calls into question the veracity of the sole implicating statement of an approver?
- What is the legal duty of an investigating agency when examining defence pleas and documentary evidence during the course of an ongoing investigation?
- Can bail be granted pending trial in a capital case when the prosecution's material connecting evidence requires further inquiry?
- Federal Government of Pakistan Versus M. D. Tahir, Advocate1989 SCMR 2069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federal Government against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of High Court Judges by the President during a caretaker government. The petition was filed with a delay of 257 days. The core legal question involved whether the President could appoint High Court Judges without the advice of a Prime Minister, and whether the High Court correctly interpreted the constitutional provisions regarding the President's powers. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, noting that the mandatory notice to the Attorney-General under the Code of Civil Procedure had not been served, and recognized the public importance of the constitutional questions regarding the distribution of functions between the President and the Prime Minister. Leave to appeal was granted to provide an authoritative pronouncement on these constitutional matters, while clarifying that the appointments of the specific judges involved were past and closed. The Court emphasized the necessity of interpreting constitutional provisions concerning parliamentary democracy and the functioning of the executive.
Questions settled- Can the President appoint High Court Judges without the advice of a Prime Minister under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the specific provision of Article 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 override the general provision of Article 48(1) regarding the requirement of the Prime Minister's advice?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained if the petitioner agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the lower court but disagrees with the legal interpretation provided therein?
- Muhammad Abdullah Versus Punjab Road Transport Board1989 SCMR 2067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Versus Member (Cons.), Board Revenue, Punjab1989 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- Maula Bakhsh Versus Azra Bin1989 SCMR 2065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Masood Versus State1989 SCMR 2063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge based on a plea of alibi and discrepancies between the First Information Report and the deceased's statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which did not attribute a specific fatal shot to the respondent. The High Court affirmed this bail, noting the respondent's status as a government servant and the evidence supporting his alibi. Upon review, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail order, primarily because the trial had already commenced and several witnesses had been examined. The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial by a specified date.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a trial and the examination of witnesses influence the Supreme Court's decision to interfere with a bail order?
- Can a plea of alibi supported by documents constitute grounds for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to cancel bail when the trial court has already begun proceedings and examined witnesses?
- Muhammad Yousaf Versus Munir Ahmad1989 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →