Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1983 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-07
  murderself-defenceright of private defencesexual assaultalteration of convictionreduction of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through jail is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder. The appellant was tried for the murder of Muhammad Bashir, who was found dead with multiple incised injuries inside his shop. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to death, which the High Court commuted to imprisonment for life, noting circumstances suggestive of a sex affair. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether a reasonable case of self-defence was made out. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence can be established by raising a reasonable doubt that it may probably be correct from the prosecution evidence itself, and that the appellant acted to defend himself from a sexual assault but exceeded the right of private defence. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Can the plea of self-defence be established by raising a reasonable doubt from the prosecution evidence itself?
  • Whether exceeding the right of self-defence in the face of a sexual assault warrants a conviction under Section 304(1) instead of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is a young offender committing homicide while resisting a sexual assault entitled to mitigation of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and Others vs Nazar Khan and Other1983 SCMR 1252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19
  allotment cancellationdisplaced personsfraud in claimsmutation of inheritanceconstitutional jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesfinality of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling land allotments previously made in favour of the respondents. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to reopen and cancel long-standing mutation and allotment orders after several decades on allegations of fraud, and whether such orders had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly set aside the cancellation order, affirming that settlement authorities were incompetent to deal with questions of fraud allegedly committed upon the claims organization under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons Act, and that past mutation orders finalized in 1953 could not be arbitrarily challenged after a lapse of nearly two decades. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities cannot exercise powers under sections 10 and 11 to re-examine matters relating to the initial verification of claims handled by the claims organization, and long-standing property titles cannot be uprooted after inordinate delay without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities have the jurisdiction under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land and Settlement) Act 1958 to deal with questions of fraud committed upon the officers of the claims organization?
  • Can mutation and allotment orders that have attained finality over a long period of time be challenged and cancelled after an inordinate delay?
  • Whether findings of fact recorded by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction can be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction when such findings are without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and Others vs Abdul Ghani and Other1983 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-26
  Board of RevenueRecord of RightsConstitutional petitionRevision of recordWaiver and estoppelLand Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a Constitutional petition, which had challenged an order passed by a Member of the Board of Revenue under Section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, concerning the revision of the record of rights. The petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue lacked the authority to direct such a revision due to the absence of necessary prerequisites and argued that the order was barred by the principles of waiver, estoppel, and laches. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding no justification to import the principles of waiver, estoppel, or laches into the exercise of powers under Section 40. The Court held that the revision of the record of rights is dependent on the merits and justification of each individual case. As the High Court had already determined that the Board's order followed a proper inquiry and was not arbitrary, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principles of waiver, estoppel, and laches be imported into the exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Is the revision of the record of rights under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, dependent upon the specific merits and justification of each individual case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1983 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-15
  extra-judicial confessiondying declarationtransportation for lifecriminal appealrecovery of incriminating articlessentencingacquittal reversal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and robbery under Sections 302 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an acquittal by the trial court which was subsequently reversed by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding an extra-judicial confession and recoveries, and the appropriate sentencing regime for an offense committed prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence—including the deceased's dying declaration by signs, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of blood-stained incriminating articles from the appellant's shop—to be credible and corroborated. The Court held that since the offense occurred in 1967, the sentence of "imprisonment for life" imposed by the High Court was legally incorrect, as the law at the time mandated "transportation for life." Consequently, the Court modified the sentence to transportation for life while maintaining the conviction, and granted the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the period of detention.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained based on a dying declaration made through signs and an extra-judicial confession?
  • Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply retrospectively to sentencing for offenses committed before its enactment?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the period spent in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar and Another vs Bashir Ahmad and Other1983 SCMR 1269(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01
  ejectment petitionrent restrictionjurisdictionopen sitelease deedsublettingsuperstructure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent dispute where the landlord sought the ejectment of the sub-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the leased premises constituted a 'mill' and thus fell outside the scope of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the tenant's Second Appeal against Order (S.A.O.). The core legal question was whether the leased property constituted an industrial concern (a mill) or an open site, which would determine the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that since the lease deed explicitly leased out only an open plot of land and required the tenant to remove any superstructure upon the expiry of the lease, the leased premises remained an open site. Consequently, the Rent Controller possessed jurisdiction, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lease of an open plot of land for the purpose of installing an industrial concern constitutes the lease of an industrial concern or an open site for jurisdictional purposes?
  • Does the requirement in a lease deed to remove any superstructure upon the expiry of the lease term indicate that the leased premises is an open site?
  • Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction over an ejectment petition where the subject matter of the lease is an open plot of land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyib vs Government of N: W. F. P. and Other1983 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-06
  medical college admissionprospectus interpretationmerit determinationeducational policyacademic admissionwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding admission criteria for the M.B., B.S. program at Khyber Medical College, Peshawar. The appellant, holding a B.Sc. (Medical Technology) degree, challenged the High Court's decision which restricted his admission merit calculation to his F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) marks, effectively excluding his B.Sc. performance. The core legal question was whether the "Important Notes" in the college prospectus, specifically clause (xv), overrode the substantive admission criteria regarding merit determination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interpretation was erroneous. Reading the prospectus as a whole, the Court determined that B.Sc. (Medical Technology) marks were intended to be a valid basis for merit assessment, and the restrictive interpretation was inconsistent with the prospectus's overall scheme. While the Court affirmed the appellant's correct interpretation of the admission policy, it declined to cancel the admissions of the respondents, who had already completed two years of study, opting instead to protect the appellant's entitlement for future academic sessions. The judgment emphasizes that prospectus provisions must be construed harmoniously rather than in isolation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a specific clause in a college prospectus regarding 'Important Notes' override the substantive admission criteria laid down in the prospectus?
  • Can a candidate holding a B.Sc. (Medical Technology) degree claim admission to an M.B., B.S. program based on the marks obtained in that degree?
  • Should the provisions of an educational prospectus be interpreted in isolation or harmoniously as a whole?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Khan vs The State1983 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-01
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancessentence commutationlife imprisonmentcompensation to legal heirsland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Malakand, which resulted in a sentence of death and was subsequently confirmed by the Peshawar High Court. Leave to appeal was granted specifically to consider the question of sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased after an altercation concerning the deceased ploughing an orchard. While the prosecution witnesses claimed the deceased was a lessee, no documentary evidence proved tenancy, and the appellant contended under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that the deceased was illegally occupying the land. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution is legally bound to exclude all possible extenuating circumstances to justify the normal penalty of death. Finding mitigating circumstances surrounding the dispute and lack of proof of lawful tenancy, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, while imposing substantial compensation and fines under Sections 544-A and 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution bound to exclude all possible extenuating circumstances before the capital sentence of death can be lawfully awarded?
  • Whether the absence of documentary evidence proving lawful possession or tenancy by a deceased in a land dispute can constitute a mitigating ground to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can compensation under Section 544-A and a fine under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be imposed simultaneously upon commuting a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Ansari and Others vs Mst. Jehan Ara and Other1983 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionproperty transferallotmentsurrender of rightspossession
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, successors-in-interest of the brother of the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their constitutional petition regarding the transfer of Property No. 13, Fane Road, Lahore. The core legal questions involved the validity and effect of an alleged handwritten but unsigned surrender document by which one Shah Rahman Ansari purportedly gave up his rights in favour of his mother, and whether a claimant mother should have received preference over her non-claimant son who was the actual allottee in undisputed possession. The Supreme Court held that the surrender document was rightly rejected as its execution and genuineness were unestablished, and further held that between an allottee-non-claimant and a claimant holding possession under him, preference is given to the allottee in undisputed possession. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unsigned and unestablished handwritten document can operate as a valid surrender of property rights?
  • Does a claimant non-allottee holding possession under an allottee non-claimant enjoy preference over the allottee in property transfer disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The Market Committee, Tandlianwala1983 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  interlocutory injunctionerroneous source of powersubordinate legislationretrospective operationaudi alteram partemfarm marketsfreedom of traderepealed statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This leave petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision against the refusal of an interlocutory injunction in a representative suit filed by traders. The petitioners, holding licences under the repealed Agricultural Market Produce Act 1939, challenged a government notification restricting the establishment of markets and prohibiting business outside newly notified Farm Markets under the Punjab Local Government Act 1975. The core legal questions concerned whether a notification citing a repealed statute is ultra vires, whether delayed publication in the official Gazette makes subordinate legislation retrospective, and whether such a notification violates the principle of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court held that an erroneous reference to a repealed source of power does not invalidate a notification if statutory power exists aliunde under current legislation, that delayed publication does not render subordinate legislation retrospective prior to its signing, and that general legislative or administrative measures do not attract the rule of audi alteram partem. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an erroneous reference to a repealed statute in the preamble of a notification render the notification ultra vires when statutory power is available under a subsequent Act?
  • Does the delayed publication of a notification in the official Gazette render subordinate legislation retrospective in operation?
  • Does the issuance of a notification establishing a notified market without prior notice to affected traders violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Does Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confer an absolute right to engage in trade or profession free from statutory regulation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Boota1983 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08
  ejectmentbona fide personal useconcurrent findings of factadditional evidencerent restrictionprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant on the grounds of the landlord's bona fide personal use. The ejectment order was upheld by both the District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The petitioner contended that the Rent Controller erred by deciding the case without first disposing of an application to adduce additional evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the appellate courts had found this application was maneuvered onto the trial court's file after the appeal had already been admitted, and that the petitioner had failed to raise this ground in the memorandum of the first appeal or seek further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court held that since the matter involved concurrent findings of fact concluded against the petitioner by three lower courts, there was no scope for interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming that procedural irregularities alleged for the first time at the appellate stage, which appear to be fabricated, do not warrant Supreme Court intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment orders?
  • Is an application for additional evidence valid if it is maneuvered onto the trial court file after an appeal has been admitted?
  • Does the failure to raise a procedural ground in the memorandum of first appeal preclude its consideration in subsequent appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 Others vs Mst. Sheedi1983 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30
  limitationleave to appealfraud and deceitremandknowledge of decreecivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that had remanded a case regarding the validity of a decree and the issue of limitation. The respondent, Mst. Sheedi, had challenged a 1954 civil decree, alleging fraud and deceit, and filed a suit for possession in 1973 after withdrawing an earlier suit. The trial court initially dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908. On appeal, the High Court remanded the matter, requiring the appellate court to first determine the merits before addressing limitation. Upon remand, the appellate court ruled the suit was within time, finding the respondent only learned of the decree on 29-1-1970. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the respondent had actual knowledge of the decree as early as 18-8-1969, evidenced by her obtaining a copy of the mutation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to determine the correct date of the respondent's knowledge of the decree and whether the suit was barred by limitation under the relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for a suit challenging a decree on the basis of fraud commence from the date of the decree or the date of the plaintiff's knowledge of the fraud?
  • Is it legally necessary for an appellate court to decide issues on merits before addressing a preliminary issue of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq.Ghulam Haider. vs Ch. Fazal Din and Others.Farooq Ahmad Bhatti and Others1983 PLD Supreme Court 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-01
  cantonment rent restrictionadditional rent controlleradditional executive officerpersona designataappointment by designationeviction proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals by special leave challenged judgments of the Lahore High Court which dismissed constitutional petitions against eviction orders passed by Additional Rent Controllers of Lahore Cantonment under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether the notification appointing Additional Executive Officers as Additional Rent Controllers was in contravention of Section 6(2) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, read with Section 10 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, rendering the proceedings a nullity. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Government is empowered under Section 6(2) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, to appoint any person as an Additional Controller of Rents, and when such appointment designates individuals by their office as Additional Executive Officers, they function as persona designata. The Court ruled that regardless of any questions concerning the creation or status of the post of Additional Executive Officer under the Cantonments Act, 1924, the appointees were validly designated and clothed with full power and authority of a Controller under Section 2(d) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of an Additional Executive Officer as an Additional Rent Controller contravenes Section 6(2) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to appoint a person as an Additional Controller of Rents by designation under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Is the competency of an Additional Executive Officer under the Cantonments Act, 1924, relevant when determining their valid designation as an Additional Controller of Rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Umar and 3 Other1983 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-19
  local government electionsmisconductadministrative lawremand orderwrit jurisdictiondisqualificationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded an election dispute to the Commissioner. The respondents were unseated as members of a Town Committee by the Commissioner based on two grounds: membership in a political party and misconduct regarding encroachment on municipal land. The High Court set aside the Commissioner's order, holding that one ground (political affiliation) related to pre-election disqualification, and applied the principle that if one ground of an administrative order is invalid, the entire order must be set aside and remanded for a fresh decision. The petitioner, who was elected in the subsequent by-election, challenged this, arguing that the principle of invalidating an entire order due to one bad ground does not apply outside the context of preventive detention. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether an administrative order based on multiple grounds must be struck down entirely if one ground is found invalid, and whether the alleged encroachment constitutes 'misconduct' under the relevant local government legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle that an administrative order must be set aside if one of its grounds is invalid apply to cases outside the scope of preventive detention?
  • Is the explanation provided in Section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 an exhaustive definition of misconduct?
  • Can a court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, sustain an administrative order if one of the grounds relied upon by the tribunal is found to be irrelevant or outside its jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and Other1983 SCMR 1197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-07
  unclean handswrit jurisdictionfalse surety bondeviction proceedingsabuse of processbona fidesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated against the petitioner for allegedly furnishing a false surety bond in an urban tenancy eviction case, where the bond was a condition for staying physical ejectment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's refusal to interfere with a lower court's direction for the petitioner's prosecution under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the petitioner's conduct throughout the protracted litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands and lacked bona fides. The Court observed that the petitioner had engaged in a subversion of the legal process to frustrate lawful ejectment orders. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who approaches a court with unclean hands and demonstrates a lack of bona fides in the context of legal proceedings is disentitled to discretionary relief, particularly in writ jurisdiction, as the court will not assist those who abuse the legal process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner who approaches the court with unclean hands and lacks bona fides forfeit the right to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a court decline to interfere with a direction for prosecution under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the petitioner has abused the legal process?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Cheema and Others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and Another1983 SCMR179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-22
  service lawleave to appealdepartmental representationstopgap promotionreversioncivil servantcompetency of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, sixteen individuals holding the posts of Overseers or Sub-Engineers, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed their appeals regarding their threatened reversion from the acting charge of Sub-Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers back to their original posts. The petitioners had been promoted to these acting charges on a stopgap basis, subject to termination without notice under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' appeals before the Service Tribunal were competent given the procedural requirements of the governing legislation. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not fit for leave to appeal because the petitioners had failed to comply with the mandatory departmental representation requirements under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, rendering their appeals before the Service Tribunal incompetent under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's direction for the petitioners to approach the Government directly for the redressal of their grievances, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting departmental remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal competent if the petitioner has not complied with the departmental representation requirements under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Can a civil servant claim a right to regular promotion when appointed to an acting charge on a stopgap basis?
  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render an appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Others vs The Administrator (Residual1983SCMR1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionurban settlementtransfer of propertylachesfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a constitutional petition relating to an urban settlement case. The petitioners sought the transfer of a property in 1979, claiming that parts of it were available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. IX, notwithstanding that the property had been transferred to respondent No. 3 nearly two decades prior. The core legal question concerned whether findings of fact regarding the entirety of the property's transfer and the inordinate delay constituting laches could be reopened. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact stood properly concluded and no question of law or principle was involved. The Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact that are well-concluded, particularly when the challenge suffers from inordinate delay and laches.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the transfer of property under a settlement scheme be reopened in the Supreme Court?
  • Does an inordinate delay in applying for the transfer of property amount to laches in urban settlement cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Others vs Mst. Nazir Begum and Other1983 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-19
  public documentprivate documentsecondary evidencecertified copiesregistered sale deedpower of attorneydisputed execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from an order refusing the petitioners (defendants in a suit for permanent injunction) permission to produce certified copies of a power of attorney and a sale deed as secondary evidence at a belated stage of the trial. The plaintiffs had from the outset denied the execution and authenticity of the disputed documents. The trial Court refused the application, and subsequent revision and writ petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court considered whether a registered document, such as a sale deed or power of attorney whose execution is disputed, qualifies as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, thereby permitting proof via certified copies as secondary evidence. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that a private document does not become a public document merely because it is registered under the Registration Act. Consequently, where the execution of a registered document is disputed, it cannot be proved merely by producing certified copies under the pretext of it being a public document.

  Questions settled

  • Does a private document become a public document merely because it is registered under the Registration Act?
  • Can a registered document whose execution is denied by the opposing party be proved by the mere production of certified copies as secondary evidence under Section 74 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Whether the original document executed by an individual and registered constitutes a public record of a private document within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs S. M. Khurram and Other1983 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-21
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide personal requirementreconstructionmutually destructive pleaswrit jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld his ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal. The ejectment was sought by the respondent landlord on the grounds of reconstruction and personal use for his son. The appellate court reversed the finding regarding reconstruction but upheld the bona fide requirement for the son's use. The core legal question was whether the pleas of reconstruction and personal need are mutually exclusive or destructive, and whether the failure of reconstruction vitiates the claim for personal use. The Supreme Court held that the pleas of reconstruction and personal use are not mutually destructive, as affirmed in prior jurisprudence. The Court found that the landlord's cross-examination did not establish that the son would not require the shop if reconstruction was disallowed, and that the matter of bona fide need is fundamentally a question of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Are the pleas of reconstruction and personal use of premises mutually exclusive or destructive?
  • Does the failure of the ground of reconstruction necessarily defeat the landlord's claim for personal use of the property?
  • Is the question of a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use a question of fact not warranting interference in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The Returning Officer and Another1983 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03
  local government electionsdisqualification of candidatesdepot-holdercontract for serviceretrospective effect of amendmentrestoration to membershipquo warranto
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the interpretation and cumulative effect of the amendment introduced by Punjab Ordinance IV of 1981 to section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979, specifically concerning the disqualification of depot-holders as candidates or members of local councils. The core legal question was whether the removal of disqualifications by the proviso and subsection (2) of section 21 applied retrospectively to restore members who had already been unseated by court judgments. The Supreme Court held that a depot-holder had an interest in the performance of a service undertaken by the government and thus fell within the disqualification under Article 10(2)(b)(8) of the House of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order 1977. However, the Court ruled that the newly added subsection (2) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 operated retrospectively, rendering such disqualifications as if they never existed and automatically restoring previously unseated members to their seats.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foodgrain depot-holder have a share or interest in the performance of a service undertaken by the Government under Article 10(2)(b)(8) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order 1977?
  • Whether the amendment introduced by Punjab Ordinance IV of 1981 to section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 has retrospective effect?
  • Does subsection (2) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 operate to restore members who had already been removed from their seats on the grounds of disqualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1983 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05
  Zinarapeleave to appealmedical evidencecorroborationdelayed FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the convict Muhammad Shafi against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance and section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction for Zina and causing hurt could be sustained despite delays in the first information report, omissions therein regarding the offence of Zina, and alleged defects in the police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper evidence, as the testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and the testimony of the injured father sufficiently established the charges. The Court affirmed that the conviction was legally sound and refused leave to appeal, laying down that the uncorroborated elements or investigative flaws do not vitiate a conviction where direct testimony is amply supported by medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained when the first information report is delayed and does not initially mention the offence of Zina?
  • Whether flaws and dishonest attitudes in the police investigation vitiate an otherwise well-supported prosecution case?
  • Is the testimony of the prosecutrix, when corroborated by medical evidence, sufficient to uphold a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance?
  • Whether the delay in filing an appeal can be condoned upon satisfactory reasons being shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary M_Finance and Other1983SCMR740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-25
  premature incrementsbasic minimum qualificationservice lawdiscriminatory treatmentNational Pay Scaleservice tribunaladministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's claim for five premature increments. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, a Statistical Officer, met the basic minimum qualification of a Master's Degree required for such increments, given that the post was also open to Bachelor's degree holders. The petitioner further argued that the government applied discriminatory standards by granting similar increments to Engineers despite their posts also being open to lower-qualified candidates. The Court held that the mere upgrading of a post to National Pay Scale 17 does not elevate the basic minimum qualification if the original recruitment criteria still permitted Bachelor's degree holders. Consequently, the Master's degree was not the basic minimum qualification. However, the Court found substance in the petitioner's contention regarding inconsistent administrative treatment compared to Engineers. The Court concluded that the matter required further examination to determine if different yardsticks were applied to similarly situated categories, and thus granted leave to appeal to resolve the issue of discriminatory administrative practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the upgrading of a post to a higher National Pay Scale automatically elevate the basic minimum qualification for that post?
  • Is a Master's degree considered the basic minimum qualification for a post if the original recruitment advertisement permitted candidates with a Bachelor's degree?
  • Can an administrative authority apply different criteria for granting premature increments to different classes of employees performing similar functions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 2 Others vs The State1983 SCMR 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31
  leave to appealmurdergrave and sudden provocationdeath sentencecriminal appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29th March, 1981, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal and confirmed the death sentences of petitioners Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Anwar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Siddiq and his son Ashfaq, while another petitioner received a lesser penalty. The core legal question is whether the offence fell under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or if a lesser charge was attracted in view of the sudden provocation arising from an earlier morning quarrel between the boys of the respective families. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding grave and sudden provocation requires detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that an antecedent quarrel and sudden provocation involving family members can furnish sufficient grounds to examine the applicability of a lesser sentence than capital punishment in a murder case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an earlier quarrel between family members constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to alter a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when the proportionality of the sentence in light of immediate provocation requires examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs Muhammad Aslam and Other1983 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-02
  murderculpable homicideappraisal of evidenceinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponssudden fightcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a High Court judgment acquitting the respondents who were originally convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Shahid and under section 307 for assaulting Muhammad Salim. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court misappraised the evidence, notably by incorrectly treating eyewitnesses as related and interested witnesses based on hearsay, and by disregarding prompt recoveries of blood-stained crime weapons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding on witness relationship was based on a fundamental misconception and that the recoveries were individual and incriminating. However, upon reviewing the nature and locale of the injuries—specifically a fatal knife injury inflicted on the knee rather than a vital body part during a sudden grappling incident—the Court concluded that premeditation was absent and the intention to kill was not established. Consequently, the conviction under section 302 was altered to section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where a fatal injury is inflicted on a non-vital part during a sudden fight without premeditation, the offense falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than premeditated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reverse an acquittal based on a fundamental misconception of facts regarding witness relationships?
  • Does the infliction of a fatal injury on a non-vital part of the body during a sudden grappling incident negative the intention to cause murder under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 be altered to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Alias Seema vs The State1983 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15
  murder convictionocular evidencedeath sentenceretracted confessioninterested witnesscriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, Farid Khan. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on ocular testimony when the appellant challenged the reliability of the weapon recovery, the retracted confession, and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court ruled that the testimony of the deceased’s daughter and nephew was credible, as they had no personal enmity against the appellant and their presence at the scene was natural. The Court established the principle that even if specific items of circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of the weapon or a retracted confession, are disputed or excluded, a conviction remains legally sustainable if the ocular evidence is consistent, credible, and supported by a clear motive. The judgment reaffirms that in cases of broad daylight occurrences, the testimony of natural witnesses is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the disputed circumstantial evidence secondary to the primary ocular account.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony if the recovery of the weapon is disputed?
  • Does the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime during daylight hours make them a credible witness despite familial relations to the deceased?
  • Is the testimony of a witness sufficient to prove guilt if the motive for the crime is clearly established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar and Others vs The State1983SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27
  pre-arrest bailcross versionsfirst information reportprivate defencecriminal proceduresupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court. The three petitioners, accused alongside others under sections 148, 324, and 325 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contended that their first information report was prior in time to a counter-report and that a right of private defence had accrued. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail ought to be granted in a case involving a sudden cross-version incident where no ulteiror motive or extraordinary feature justifying pre-arrest relief is demonstrated. The Supreme Court held that pre-arrest bail is not the rule in cognizable offences and is granted only when arrest is apprehended due to ulterior motives or exceptional circumstances. Finding no such features, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy requiring proof of mala fides or peculiar justifying features, and normal criminal process requiring post-arrest bail should otherwise take its course in cross-version affrays.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail the rule in cognizable offences?
  • What are the essential grounds required for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a prior first information report automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in a cross-version case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Riaz and Other1983 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31
  appointment of receiveradministration suitbona fide possessionleave to appealinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appointment of a Receiver in a suit for administration of an estate. The core legal question concerns the propriety of appointing a Receiver over a disputed property in a partition or administration suit where one co-sharer claims exclusive title and bona fide possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a person in bona fide possession of a property should not ordinarily be deprived of its possession through the appointment of a Receiver without proper inquiry into possession and title. The Court laid down the principle that courts must duly consider evidence of exclusive possession and prima facie title before ordering the appointment of a Receiver over disputed estate properties, and conditionally suspended the Receiver's appointment pending the final outcome of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person in bona fide possession of a disputed property can be deprived of its possession by the appointment of a Receiver?
  • Can a Receiver be appointed in an administration suit without holding an inquiry or recording evidence as to the possession of the disputed properties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Ismail1983 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08
  withdrawal of suitspecific performancevaluable rightcourt fee deficiencycivil revisionleave to appeallimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit for specific performance, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a trial court order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw their suit with permission to file a fresh one. The petitioner argued that a valuable right had accrued to them because the plaintiff had failed to make up a deficiency in court fees, and that this right was improperly extinguished by the withdrawal order. The Supreme Court examined whether the withdrawal caused irreparable injury to the petitioner. The Court held that no valuable right had accrued to the petitioner because the period of limitation for the specific performance claim had not expired at the time the withdrawal was granted. Consequently, the petitioner had not suffered any tangible or irreparable injury. The Court affirmed that the trial court's discretion to allow withdrawal was properly exercised, as the plaintiff could reassert the claim upon payment of the proper court fee. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one deprive a defendant of a valuable right if the limitation period for the claim has not yet expired?
  • Can a court grant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one when there is an outstanding deficiency in court fees?
  • Does the failure to pay court fees within the allowed time create an accrued right for the defendant that prevents the plaintiff from withdrawing the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1983 SCMR 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-24
  Zina-bil-Jabrrapeprocedural illegalitycognizance of offencepetition for leave to appealvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Riaz, under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing rape. The core legal question was whether the benefit of a procedural illegality under section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—which vitiated the trial of a co-accused summoned directly by the trial court—could be extended to the petitioner, whose trial suffered from no such defect. The Supreme Court held that the benefit of a procedural error committed under section 190(1)(c) read with section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in taking cognizance is exclusively available to the specific accused whose case was so taken cognizance of, and cannot be extended to other co-accused tried alongside. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of a procedural error under section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 committed regarding one co-accused can be extended to another co-accused?
  • Does the failure to comply with section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial of an accused summoned directly by the trial court?
  • Can the testimony of a prosecutrix supported by medical evidence and corroborative witnesses sustain a conviction for rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The Collector, District Rahimyarkhan1983 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16
  state landlease extensionconstitutional petitionexhaustion of remediesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former allottee of State land, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner's lease of State land had expired, and his application for a five-year extension under a policy circular was rejected after the Colonies Department changed its policy to dispose of such land by auction, leading the Collector to file his application. The High Court had dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had no vested right to extension. Before the Supreme Court, it was noted that the petitioner had moved departmental authorities for relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner must first exhaust available departmental remedies before seeking judicial adjudication on merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with these observations, and leave to appeal was refused, establishing the principle that litigants must exhaust departmental remedies prior to invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner must exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the High Court through a constitutional petition?
  • Does an allottee of State land possess a vested right to the extension of a lease upon its expiration?
  • Can leave to appeal be refused when the petitioner has bypassed available departmental forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Muhammad Rafique and Another1983 PLD Supreme Court 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-18
  bail cancellationsessions trialtrial delayday-to-day trialsupervisory jurisdictionjudicial efficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  These two petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents in a murder case. The petitioner contended that the trial was being prolonged because the accused were on bail and had no incentive to expedite the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that despite its earlier directions to conclude the trial without delay, the trial court had repeatedly adjourned the matter over a period of two years, failing to follow the procedure for cross-cases and the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court declined to cancel the respondents' bail, finding that they were not responsible for the systemic delays. However, the Court strongly criticized the complacency of the subordinate judiciary and the failure to adhere to rules requiring day-to-day trials. It laid down the principle that sessions trials must proceed from day to day once commenced, and directed the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure efficiency and prevent unmerited adjournments.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail granted to an accused be cancelled solely on the ground of trial delay where the accused is not responsible for such delay?
  • What is the proper procedure to be followed by a trial court under the High Court Rules and Orders for conducting sessions trials?
  • How should cross-cases arising from a police report and a private complaint be tried by the Sessions Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mehr Din and Other1983 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-02
  eviction orderpersonal requirementunreasoned judgmentremandconcurrent findingswrit jurisdictionbona fide need
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a High Court judgment declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction with an order of eviction passed against the appellant by the Rent Controller and upheld in appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether an appellate judgment that fails to explicitly record its reasons should be remanded for rewriting, despite concurrent findings and sufficient record evidence demonstrating personal bona fide requirement by the landlords. The Supreme Court held that while courts should always record reasons demonstrating proper application of mind, remanding the case would be a futile exercise since the appellate court had heard the parties, examined the record, and the evidence clearly established the landlords' genuine personal requirement for the shop. The Court affirmed that where the evidence on record overwhelmingly supports the concurrent finding of fact and the tenant himself admitted key facts, remanding the matter solely to rewrite the judgment serves no useful purpose. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Should an appellate rent order lacking express reasoning be remanded for rewriting if the evidence on record fully supports the decision?
  • Does a failure by an appellate tribunal to explicitly record reasons automatically vitiate its order where the record demonstrates full application of mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1983 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-05
  murdercapital punishmentappreciation of evidenceeyewitness testimonybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Seeman, along with a reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of prosecution evidence, specifically the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the veracity of the First Information Report, and the credibility of corroborative recoveries and medical evidence. The Supreme Court evaluated the material discrepancies, improvements in witness statements regarding their presence at the scene, the timing of the crime as suggested by the medical evidence, and suspicious investigative procedures. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the eyewitnesses were not present at the material time and the crime appeared to be an unwitnessed nocturnal occurrence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses render their evidence untrustworthy in a capital case?
  • Does a significant discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the time of death cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the recovery of blood-stained articles and alleged apprehension at the spot can sustain a conviction when the presence of eyewitnesses is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The Board of Intermediate & Secondary1983 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-04
  civil court jurisdictionbar of suitgood faithunfair meansexamination disqualificationeducational boardleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision petition dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellate district court's decision dismissing the petitioner's civil suit. The petitioner had challenged disciplinary orders passed by the educational Board disqualifying him for examination malpractices. The petitioner contended that an earlier appellate decision exonerating him was improperly substituted without a hearing, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the civil court despite statutory bars. The Supreme Court examined Sections 29 and 31 of the West Pakistan Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Multan and Sargodha) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that Section 29 bars civil suits against orders passed in pursuance of the Ordinance, while Section 31 excludes civil jurisdiction for acts done or purported to be done in good faith under the Ordinance. Because there was no evidence establishing lack of good faith, the mere allegation that the appeal was decided incorrectly did not confer jurisdiction on the civil court. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation that an internal educational board appeal was decided incorrectly confer jurisdiction on a civil court where statutory provisions bar civil suits?
  • Does Section 31 of the West Pakistan Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Multan and Sargodha) Ordinance 1968 exclude civil court jurisdiction for acts merely purported to be done under the Ordinance in good faith?
  • Can a civil suit be entertained against an action of an educational board absent proof of a lack of good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1983 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-12
  murderocular testimonymedical evidence discrepancybenefit of doubtindependent corroborationeyewitness credibilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the court arises from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Nawaz, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Aitbar Khan, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the discrediting and acquittal of co-accused based on the testimony of the same eye-witnesses necessitated strong independent corroboration of their testimony before convicting the appellant, and whether material discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant. The holding establishes that where eye-witness testimony suffers from significant contradictions regarding the manner of the assault, unconvincing explanations for the presence of alleged eye-witnesses, and direct inconsistencies with medical evidence concerning the physical state of the deceased, such testimony becomes unsafe for sustaining a capital or major conviction without reliable independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused require strong independent corroboration before sustaining the conviction of the remaining appellant?
  • Whether material discrepancies between ocular accounts and medical evidence regarding the state of the deceased's body impair the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for murder be maintained solely on the testimony of witnesses whose presence at the scene is found to be coincidental and unconvincing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Habibullah and Other1983 SCMR 100 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14
  leave to appealacquittalhandwriting comparisoneye-witness credibilityappellate jurisdictionbailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order granting leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court. The primary issue concerns the propriety of the High Court's procedure in acquiring, verifying, and comparing the handwriting of a key eye-witness for the first time during appellate proceedings, leading the High Court to deem the witness thoroughly unreliable despite being found reliable by the trial court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court, in forming its opinion regarding the credibility of the eye-witness, took all relevant factors into consideration and whether its conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the respondents returnable to the District Magistrate, Sargodha.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can properly procure, verify, and compare handwriting evidence for the first time in appellate proceedings to assess witness credibility?
  • Whether the High Court took into consideration all relevant factors in discrediting an eye-witness relied upon by the trial court?
  • Whether the conclusions drawn by the High Court regarding witness credibility could reasonably be drawn from the material on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Abdul Rashid and Others1983 PLD Supreme Court 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-26
  private defenceculpable homicidecriminal appealacquittalpossession of propertyexceeding right of private defencecriminal force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's acquittal of respondents in a double murder and attempted murder case arising from a dispute over the possession of a plot. The core legal question concerned whether the accused, who were in lawful possession of the property, were entitled to the right of private defence when confronted by an unarmed complainant party, and whether they exceeded that right. The Supreme Court held that while the accused possessed an initial right of private defence against the complainant party's criminal force and assault, they significantly exceeded this right by using lethal force against unarmed individuals. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of those responsible for the deaths and injuries, convicting them under Section 304, Part I, and Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, respectively. The Court affirmed that the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary, and exceeding this limit in good faith constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence?
  • When does the act of causing death in the exercise of the right of private defence fall under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be convicted for attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they exceed the right of private defence?
  • Does the assembly of unarmed persons to prevent a possessory act constitute criminal force or assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehdi vs Allah Bakhsh1983 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-06
  murderleave to appealsentence reductionfamily honourjoint liabilityacquittalcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal concerning a murder case where two individuals, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Shafi, were killed, and several others were injured. The motive for the crime was alleged to be an illicit liaison between the deceased, Ghulam Rasool, and the daughter of one of the accused. The High Court had previously reduced the death sentences of two accused, Allah Bakhsh and Ghulam Hussain, to life imprisonment, citing the vindication of family honour. The complainant filed a petition challenging this reduction, arguing that the plea of honour did not apply to the murder of Muhammad Shafi, and also challenged the acquittal of other accused persons regarding charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court observed that the attack appeared to be a joint and concerted effort, necessitating a review of the acquittal under Section 307. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both the complainant's petition and the connected petition filed by the convicts to examine the legality of the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of family honour serve as a mitigating factor for the murder of a person not involved in the alleged illicit relationship?
  • Does a joint and concerted attack preclude the separation of cases for individual accused regarding the intention to commit murder?
  • Under what circumstances can an acquittal under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reviewed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid Butt vs Government of Pakistan1983 PLD Supreme Court 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19
  constitutional petitionDefence Servicescivilian employeeMilitary Engineering Servicebar of jurisdictionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civilian employee in the Military Engineering Service under the Ministry of Defence, challenged his retirement under the Civilian Employees in Defence Service (Further Usefulness in Service) Rules, 1964 by filing a constitutional petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it barred under Article 98(3)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 because the appellant was a person in the Defence Services. The core legal question was whether a civilian employee holding a post included in the General Central Service Class II and later re-designated as Defence Services (Civilian) Class II could invoke constitutional jurisdiction despite being enrolled under the Army Act and belonging to the Military Engineering Service. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'Defence Services of Pakistan' in Article 98(3)(a) encompasses all employment connected with, ancillary, or incidental to the tasks of the defence forces, including the Military Engineering Service. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions by persons in the Defence Services or services connected therewith regarding terms, conditions, or actions taken in relation to their service are barred under Article 98(3)(a) of the Constitution of 1962.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition by a civilian employee in the Military Engineering Service regarding his retirement is barred under Article 98(3)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
  • Does the expression 'Defence Services of Pakistan' include services connected with, ancillary, or incidental to the tasks performed by the defence forces?
  • What is the effect of enrolment under the Army Act on a civilian employee's status regarding Defence Services?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and Others vs Muzaffar1983 PLD Supreme Court 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-13
  pre-emptiontenant's right of pre-emptionLand Reforms Regulationsuperior right of pre-emptionregular second appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a tenant who purchases land loses their status as a tenant and consequently their preferential right to defend a pre-emption suit under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner pre-emptors must possess a superior right of pre-emption at the time of the sale, suit, and decree. Since the defendant was a tenant at the crucial time of the sale, the plaintiffs had no preferential claim, and the merger of tenancy into ownership upon purchase does not afford the plaintiffs a superior right. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant-vendee does not lose their preferential status as a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation simply because the sale has concluded, avoiding the anomaly of a tenant succeeding as a plaintiff in a pre-emption action but failing as a defendant vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant lose their preferential right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, once they purchase the land?
  • Must a pre-emptor establish a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of the suit, and at the time of the decree?
  • Can a defendant vendee who was a tenant prior to the sale defend a pre-emption suit on the basis of their prior tenancy status?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1983 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-29
  attempted murdergrave and sudden provocationalteration of convictioncriminal intentdagger attackpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had altered the petitioner's conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced his sentence. The petitioner was accused of inflicting dagger blows on the victim's neck and mandible following an altercation concerning an alleged theft. The core legal questions involved whether the offence constituted an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 or simple hurt under grave and sudden provocation pursuant to Section 334, and whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction based on the simplicity of the injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the nature of the weapon used, the vulnerable body parts targeted, and the repeated blows indicated an intention to cause death, thereby establishing an offence under Section 307. The key principle laid down is that intention in assault cases must be inferred from external acts such as the weapon used and the vital part of the body targeted, and that a lapse of time between an alleged insult and an attack negates the defense of grave and sudden provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence falls under Section 307 or Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code when repeated dagger blows are inflicted on the vital parts of the victim's body?
  • Can an insult by a third party (the accused's father) hours before the incident constitute grave and sudden provocation for an attack on the complainant under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • How is criminal intention ascertained when evaluating an assault resulting in simple injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs Mst. Sarwar Jehan and 2 Other1983 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-13
  dissolution of marriagenon-maintenanceKhularestoration of benefitswrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court which dismissed his writ petition challenging a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the Appellate Court in favor of the respondent-wife. The core legal question concerned whether the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula, thereby necessitating the conditional restoration of benefits received by the wife, or on the ground of non-maintenance for a statutory period. The Supreme Court held that the marriage was validly dissolved on the ground of the husband's failure to maintain the wife for more than two years without any fault on her part, rather than on the basis of Khula. Consequently, the question of the return of marital benefits did not arise. The key principle laid down is that where a decree of dissolution of marriage is founded upon substantiated grounds of non-maintenance rather than Khula, the requirement for the conditional restoration of benefits does not apply, and the High Court's refusal to interfere with such concurrent factual findings warrants no appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree for dissolution of marriage based on non-maintenance requires the conditional restoration of benefits received by the wife?
  • Can the High Court's refusal to interfere with a decree of dissolution of marriage be challenged on the ground of Khula when the lower appellate court rested its decision on non-maintenance?
  • Whether failure to maintain the wife for more than two years constitutes a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Abdul Rashid and 2 Other1983 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28
  writ petitionsettlement schemevoid orderlacheslimitationconstitutional jurisdictionejectmentlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing his constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a shop under settlement laws. The shop was originally transferred to the respondent in 1959. The petitioner, despite being in physical occupation, did not file a transfer form during initial settlement operations and only challenged the transfer after an nine-year delay, following ejectment proceedings against him. He argued that the transfer order was void due to misrepresentation regarding possession and non-compliance with Settlement Scheme No. I, rendering limitation inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that even assuming an order is void, courts are not obligated to strike it down if the petitioner is guilty of laches, seeks to circumvent limitation statutes, or is estopped by conduct. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court exercising constitutional jurisdiction is bound to set aside an order alleged to be void regardless of laches or delay by the petitioner?
  • Can a writ petition challenging an administrative or settlement order be refused on the ground that the petitioner is seeking to circumvent statutory limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Qamar vs Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim1983 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-27
  personal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide needevictionrent controlconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a landlord's application for the eviction of his tenant from a building on the grounds of personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the first appellate court ordered eviction, finding the landlord's personal need genuine. The High Court upheld this decision in second appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the landlord's plea of personal requirement was bona fide, specifically considering his heart condition and the potential health risks of climbing stairs to the first-floor premises, and whether his choice of this specific property over another owned property was reasonable. The Supreme Court held that the landlord provided a satisfactory financial explanation for selecting the disputed property over his other building. Furthermore, the Court found that in the absence of contradictory medical evidence from the tenant, the landlord's claim regarding the proximity to a medical facility for his heart condition remained credible. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the landlord’s personal requirement was bona fide, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's choice of a specific property for personal use considered bona fide when they own other properties?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the tenant to contradict a landlord's stated personal requirement for eviction?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and Another vs The State1983 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-27
  culpable homicidesudden fightdying declarationocular testimonycriminal liabilityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions arise out of a judgment convicting the accused petitioners under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder following an altercation over irrigation water resulting in the death of Bashir Ahmad. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, dying declarations, and the extent of individual criminal liability for co-accused in a sudden fight without pre-meditation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal should be refused to the petitioner who inflicted fatal spear injuries, but granted leave to appeal to the co-accused who used a stick to examine his precise criminal liability. The key principle laid down is that in sudden altercations without pre-meditation, individual liability depends upon the specific weapon used and the nature of injuries caused by each participant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable on ocular testimony and dying declarations during a sudden encounter?
  • Can co-accused in a sudden fight without pre-meditation be held equally liable regardless of the specific weapons used and injuries inflicted by each?
  • Does the absence of pre-meditation in a sudden quarrel alter the nature of the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and Others vs Mst. Bakhtawari and Other1983 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02
  review petitioncondonation of delaySupreme Court Ruleslimitationprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition presented against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the delay in refiling the review petition, after it was taken back following the disallowance of an exemption application regarding the drawing of the petition by the original counsel or advocate-on-record, can be condoned under the circumstances. The court held that the review petition, being barred by sixty days, lacked satisfactory reasons for the delay and was not a fit case for condoning the same. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to procedural rules regarding the presentation and refiling of review petitions is required, and unexplained or unsatisfactory delays will not be condoned by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a review petition can be condoned when the reasons provided for the delay are unsatisfactory?
  • Does a review petition violate procedural rules if it is not drawn by the counsel or advocate-on-record who appeared at the hearing of the original petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and Others vs Akhtar H. Ghori1983 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Yaqub Etc.S1983 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-17
  ejectmentpartial evictiontenancybona fide personal needrent restrictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning an ejectment order against a tenant. The petitioner, a tenant of a shop, challenged an order for partial eviction sought by the respondent, who had purchased a portion of the premises. The core legal questions were whether a landlord can seek the ejectment of a tenant from only a part of a building, and whether the tenancy of a single unit can be legally divided for such purposes. The petitioner further argued that the landlord failed to satisfy the statutory requirements regarding bona fide personal need and the absence of other suitable accommodation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal prohibition against a landlord seeking the ejectment of a tenant from a portion of a building, provided the property is sufficiently identified. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the division of tenancy or the alleged misreading of evidence by the lower courts, thereby affirming the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek the ejectment of a tenant from only a part of a building?
  • Does the law prohibit the division of a tenancy for the purpose of partial eviction?
  • Must a landlord prove the absence of other suitable accommodation to satisfy the requirements for personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and Another vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab and Other1983 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08
  service tribunalseniority disputeexecutive engineerscontinuous officiationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute in the cadre of officiating Executive Engineers in Class I Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab. The core legal question involves the correct interpretation and application of seniority rules, specifically rule 15.2 and rule 15.4, concerning temporary Engineers, Class II Officers, and promotees to the cadre of Executive Engineers. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the misconstruction of the explanation to rule 15.2 and the applicability of rule 15.4 require detailed consideration by the Court. The key principle established is that the determination of seniority for officers holding officiating Executive Engineer posts must be strictly evaluated in accordance with the applicable departmental rules governing continuous officiation and recruitment source.

  Questions settled

  • How is the seniority of Class II Officers and temporary Engineers holding posts of Executive Engineers determined under rule 15.2?
  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal misconstrued the explanation of rule 15.2 regarding promotees from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers?
  • Does rule 15.4 apply to determine the relative seniority of parties when rule 15.2 is inapplicable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ijsman vs N.W.4F. Province through the Chief Secretary/1983 PLD Supreme Court 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-24
  service appealpremature appealstatutory bardepartmental representationservice tribunalcivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which deemed it premature. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed before the expiry of the 90-day statutory waiting period, required after filing a departmental representation, is competent, and whether such an appeal can be adjudicated on merits if the period expires during pendency. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was premature and incompetent. The Court affirmed that the proviso to Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, creates a mandatory statutory bar. The legislative intent is to provide departmental authorities a specific period to redress grievances before judicial intervention. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal until the 90-day period has elapsed. The Court distinguished service matters from other civil proceedings, noting that the statutory bar in service law is absolute and cannot be bypassed by the mere admission of an appeal at a preliminary stage. The petitioner retains the right to file a fresh appeal following the final departmental decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a service appeal filed before the expiry of the 90-day period following a departmental representation competent?
  • Does the admission of an appeal at a preliminary hearing cure the defect of it being filed prematurely?
  • Can a premature service appeal be decided on merits if the statutory waiting period expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Faqir Muhammad1983 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-26
  ejectmentbona fide personal uselandlord and tenantleave to appealconcurrent findings of factmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which upheld the ejectment of a tenant from a shop on the grounds of the landlord's bona fide personal use. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the findings of the District Judge, which favored the landlord, over the Rent Controller's initial dismissal of the ejectment petition, particularly regarding the tenant's contention that the landlord had disposed of other adjoining shops during the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the issues raised were essentially questions of fact, which the Court declined to re-examine. Furthermore, the Court noted that the allegation of mala fides was not properly raised in the written objections before the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of special grounds, and allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded to be considered.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal use in an ejectment case?
  • Is a tenant entitled to challenge the validity of a transfer of property in favor of a landlord when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and Another vs Ilam Din and Another1983 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-02
  property classificationsettlement mattermunicipal recordsurban propertySialkot CityPartition era records
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arose from a dispute regarding the classification of a property located at Hakim Khadim A.I Road, Sialkot City. The core legal question before the Court was whether the property in question constituted merely a 'deori' (a vestibule or entrance area) or a separate, independent shop, a determination that carried significant implications for settlement proceedings. The High Court had previously ruled that the property was a separate shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the relevant municipal records dating back to 1947. The Court found that the property had been consistently treated and assessed as a separate shop even prior to the Partition of the subcontinent. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its classification of the property as a separate shop. Finding no merit in the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the High Court's judgment and establishing that historical municipal assessment records serve as a definitive basis for determining the legal character of urban property.

  Questions settled

  • Can historical municipal assessment records be used to determine the legal character of a property?
  • Does a property assessed as a separate shop in pre-Partition municipal records constitute a separate shop for settlement purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Hussain and Other1983 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22
  special leave to appealright of private defenceself-defenceaccused statementocular evidencemurderacquittalconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment. The case originated from a murder and injury incident where the petitioner's son was killed and the petitioner injured. The trial court acquitted two respondents and convicted respondent No. 1 under Sections 304 and 308, Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, largely based on his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, after rejecting ocular evidence. The High Court, while agreeing on the unreliability of ocular evidence, acquitted respondent No. 1, holding that his statement admitted firing in self-defence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against respondent No. 1, finding that the High Court's judgment required further consideration, particularly regarding whether the right of private defence was exceeded, as no harm was caused to the accused or his family.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be legitimately recorded against an accused based on their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, even if ocular evidence is deemed untrustworthy?
  • What is the extent of the right of private defence, and can it be exceeded if no harm is caused to the person exercising it or their family?
  • Does a judgment require further consideration if it acquits an accused who admitted firing a weapon, claiming self-defence, but no harm was caused to them or their family?
  • Can an accused's statement, read as a whole, be used to determine if the right of private defence was exceeded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Abdul Hussain Karimji Trust and Other1983 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19
  ejectment proceedingsstatutory tenantex parte orderlocus standirent appealmaintainability of applicationdefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's rent appeal against an ejectment order. The landlord, a Trust, initiated ejectment proceedings against the tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, citing default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and structural alterations. The tenants, after initially filing a written statement, ceased appearing in the proceedings, resulting in an ex parte ejectment order. On appeal, the tenants challenged the maintainability of the ejectment application, arguing it was filed by the Trust's managing trustee rather than the Trustees themselves, and contended that the Rent Controller erred by not deciding their application for additional issues. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding the maintainability of the application was not raised in the written statement or before the High Court and could not be introduced at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the tenants, having failed to pursue their application for additional issues or cross-examine witnesses due to their own absence, could not now challenge the landlord's locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the maintainability of an ejectment application for the first time at the stage of a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Does a tenant have the right to challenge the authority of a managing trustee to file an ejectment application if the tenant failed to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence on the issue?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to decide an application for additional issues if the tenants remain absent during the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Kaze vs Government of the Punjab Chief1983 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-30
  civil servicedismissal from servicejudicial officerinquiry officermisconductcorruptionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Additional District & Sessions Judge, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service for misconduct and corruption. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings on several grounds, including the appointment of a High Court Judge as the Inquiry Officer, the delay in serving the charge-sheet, and the Inquiry Officer recommending a specific penalty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that appointing a High Court Judge as the Inquiry Officer was in accordance with the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1960, as the rules required an officer higher in rank, and it afforded maximum protection to a judicial officer. The Court further ruled that the late service of the charge-sheet did not prejudice the petitioner since he had prior opportunities to explain his conduct. Additionally, the inclusion of a recommended penalty by the Inquiry Officer, while outside their ordinary function, was severable and did not vitiate the inquiry. Finding no question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a High Court Judge as an Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings against a Sessions Judge violate the requirement of appointing an officer higher in rank?
  • Whether the late delivery of a charge-sheet and statement of allegations by an Inquiry Officer vitiates the legality of disciplinary proceedings if the accused officer had prior opportunities to explain their conduct?
  • Does the inclusion of a recommended penalty in an Inquiry Officer's report vitiate the entire inquiry or findings?
  • What is the legal distinction between a charge of having a 'reputation for being corrupt' and a charge of 'misconduct from which it could reasonably be inferred that the officer was corrupt' under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs Ghulam Rasool and Other1983 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22
  arbitration referencecounsel consentconstitutional petitioninterlocutory orderscivil suitleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, defendants in a pending civil suit, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld interlocutory orders refusing to recall a reference to arbitration. The core legal questions concerned whether the reference to arbitration was invalid under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act due to the absence of a written application signed by the parties rather than a statement by their counsel, and whether the appointment of a close relative as an arbitrator vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the requirements of the law were substantially satisfied as counsel for the parties agreed to the reference and were competent to do so, and that the objection regarding the arbitrator's relationship was premature in a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that a reference to arbitration made through statements of duly competent counsel recorded by the court satisfies substantial legal requirements, and premature challenges regarding an arbitrator's alleged bias or relationship cannot be entertained through constitutional jurisdiction while proceedings are ongoing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference to arbitration can be made on the statement of counsel without a written application signed by the parties under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground of relationship before the arbitration proceedings are concluded?
  • Whether the requirements of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act are substantially satisfied when counsel for the parties agree in court to refer the dispute to arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Another vs Muhammad Khan1983 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21
  review petitionpre-emptionpedigree-tablerecord-of-rightsstatutory presumptionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court order dated 20-2-1980, which had previously upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Additional District Judge regarding a pre-emption claim. The core legal question was whether a pedigree-table (Exh. P. 1), in the absence of oral testimony proving its contents, could be relied upon to establish the relationship between the pre-emptor and the vendor to prove a superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner contended that the pedigree-table, being part of the record-of-rights, carries a statutory presumption of correctness, a point previously overlooked by the Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the issue regarding the evidentiary value of the pedigree-table as part of the record-of-rights required further consideration. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order, allowed the review petition, and granted leave to appeal. The key principle established is that a pedigree-table forming part of the record-of-rights is entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness, which must be duly considered by the courts when determining the relationship between parties in pre-emption cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pedigree-table that forms part of the record-of-rights carry a statutory presumption of correctness?
  • Can a court overlook the evidentiary value of a document forming part of the record-of-rights in a pre-emption case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasham Khan vs The Chairman, Baluchistan Service Tribunal and Others1983 PLD Supreme Court 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29
  condonation of delayservice tribunallimitation actgood faithwrong forumcivil servantcompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through special leave arises from an order of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal dismissing a civil servant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant had initially challenged his compulsory retirement through a constitutional petition that abated upon the establishment of service tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Subsequent attempts to seek relief through the courts led to delays. During the pendency of proceedings, the Baluchistan Service Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 was enacted retrospectively, making sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to service appeals. The core legal question concerned the condonation of delay and whether the time spent in prosecuting a remedy in a wrong forum in good faith constitutes sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in treating the appellant's pursuit of remedies as wilful avoidance and ignored earlier observations of the Supreme Court regarding condonation. The Court laid down that the principles underlying section 14 can be used as a guide when applying section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, and time spent pursuing a remedy in good faith due to complicated laws or court practices can constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act apply retrospectively to appeals before the Baluchistan Service Tribunal?
  • Can the principles underlying section 14 of the Limitation Act be considered when applying section 5 thereof?
  • Does the time spent pursuing a remedy in good faith in a wrong forum constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Whether a service tribunal is bound by observations made by the Supreme Court regarding the condonation of delay in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Javaid and Other1983 SCMR 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-18
  leave to appealsettlement commissionerland preservationfactual findingsHigh Court jurisdictionbatai
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a judgment of the High Court. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court was legally justified in setting aside an order issued by the Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The Settlement Commissioner's original order was predicated on a specific finding of fact regarding the status of land in Mauza Garbagh, specifically whether the area in question was protected under the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900, and the relevant notifications issued thereunder. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's interference with this factual finding and the application of the aforementioned Act. The Court also issued notice to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, and directed that the interim stay order remain in effect, with the petitioner undertaking not to obstruct tenants from paying batai to the respondents pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Was the High Court justified in setting aside the factual findings of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the applicability of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900?
  • Does the land in Mauza Garbagh fall under the protection of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Habib Ullah Khan and Another1983 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Shibli vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gojra at1983 SCMR 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  exemplary costsappellate jurisdictionfalse and fictitious claimscivil procedureintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, specifically contesting the imposition of exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 5,000 awarded to the respondent upon the dismissal of the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal. The petitioner argued that the appellate court lacked the legal authority to grant such costs, asserting that the relevant statutory framework for compensation regarding false or fictitious claims is limited by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to award exemplary costs when dismissing an appeal, particularly in light of the constraints imposed by Section 35-A and Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court erred in awarding these costs, as the statutory provisions do not permit such an order in this context. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the imposition of the exemplary costs, establishing that an appellate court cannot impose exemplary costs where the statutory conditions for such an award are not met.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the power to award exemplary costs when dismissing an appeal?
  • Can an appellate court make an order under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the trial court omitted or refused to make such an order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Ch. Muzaffar Hussain and Others1983 PLD Supreme Court 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-01
  past and closed transactiondisplaced persons propertytransfer of propertyreview of settlement ordersestoppel by tenancyconstitutional petitionlocal occupant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examines whether the transfer of a displaced person's property had become a past and closed transaction, and whether the respondent, having attorned to the appellant as a landlord, was legally barred from disputing his title. The respondent, a local in occupation of the disputed house, had initially applied for its transfer, but his claim form remained unattended due to temporary instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The property was subsequently placed in earmarking and transferred to the appellant, who obtained a provisional transfer order and initiated ejectment proceedings after issuing notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Upon the withdrawal of the restrictive instructions, the respondent applied for a review, which was initially refused by the Settlement Commissioner. The High Court allowed the respondent's constitutional petition, a decision upheld in Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court held that actions taken under instructions inconsistent with parent law are nullities and cannot attain finality, meaning the transaction could not be deemed past and closed where the claimant's form was never adjudicated upon. Furthermore, recognition of the transferee as a landlord under statutory obligation does not estop a tenant from challenging the underlying transfer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transfer made pursuant to administrative instructions that are inconsistent with the parent statute can attain the status of a past and closed transaction?
  • Does a statutory tenant who attorns to a provisional transfer order holder become legally estopped from challenging the underlying transfer of the property?
  • Whether the failure to adjudicate upon a claim form due to conflicting administrative instructions prevents a transaction from becoming past and closed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and Others vs A. A. Wasty, Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division and 2 Other1983 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-16
  settlement authoritiespermanent transfer deedP.T.D.demarcation proceedingsjurisdictional defectconstitutional jurisdictiontransfer of propertysettlement scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the transfer of plots in Bhakkar, where multiple parties claimed portions of the same Khasra number. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to reopen and unsettle transfer orders, including those for which Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.) had been issued, when the original transfer process was conducted in a haphazard manner without proper verification of construction claims. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction to remand the case for a fresh determination. The Court found that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had failed to perform the mandatory duty under Settlement Scheme No. VI to verify permanent construction through spot inspections, resulting in an erroneous and haphazard allocation of land. The Court affirmed that where jurisdictional requirements for transfer are not met, the settlement authorities are empowered to re-examine and re-adjust claims to ensure compliance with the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was correctly declined in this matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Settlement Commissioner reopen and unsettle transfer orders if the original transfer was made in a haphazard manner without verifying jurisdictional requirements?
  • Does the failure of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner to conduct a mandatory spot inspection to verify permanent construction constitute a jurisdictional defect?
  • Can a party raise a new question of fact for the first time before the Supreme Court in an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and Another vs Rivaz Gardends Social Welfare1983 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21
  interlocutory injunctionstatus quointerim reliefpetrol pump relocationcivil suitdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the use of a plot of land, known as the 'grassy plot,' within the Rivaz Garden Scheme in Lahore. The petitioners, having been directed by the Lahore Development Authority to relocate their petrol pump to this plot, faced a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent welfare society, which sought to restrain the operation of the pump. While the trial court initially refused an interim injunction, the appellate court ordered the maintenance of the status quo. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts correctly applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory relief. The Court held that the status quo order should not be interpreted to prevent necessary safety measures or reasonable use of the premises, particularly when such measures protect public interest. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioners to reconstruct a room (limited to the size of the original) and cement their underground petrol tank, subject to the petitioners' undertaking to remove these additions if ultimately unsuccessful in the main suit. The Court also mandated an expedited disposal of the suit within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order to maintain the status quo in a civil suit preclude necessary safety improvements to existing structures?
  • Can a court grant interim permission for construction on disputed land pending the final determination of a suit?
  • What is the scope of a court's discretion in modifying status quo orders to prevent potential harm or ensure regulatory compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulzar vs The State1983 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-21
  murdercriminal appealocular testimonysite inspectionacquittal reversalself-defensedeath penaltyevidence appraisal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment, which reversed a trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellant for murder, sentencing him to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony versus a trial court's site inspection note conducted two years post-incident, and the evidentiary value of an accused's statement admitting to the firing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appraised the evidence, finding that the trial court's site inspection was unreliable due to potential topographical changes over time. The Court affirmed that an accused's statement admitting to firing shots, even when asserting self-defense, can corroborate prosecution evidence when the self-defense claim is inherently implausible and contradicts common sense. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's reasoning or the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court's site inspection note conducted years after an incident override reliable ocular testimony?
  • Is an accused's statement admitting to firing shots, while claiming self-defense, sufficient to corroborate prosecution evidence if the self-defense claim is implausible?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to re-evaluate the findings of a trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs Settlement Commissioner and Other1983 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-02
  leave to appealsettlement schemetransfer of propertyconstructive possessiondisplaced person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court which allowed the respondent's intra-court appeal and set aside the transfer of a disputed shop previously made in favor of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns whether the original allottee, who had let out the shop to a tenant, or the tenant in actual occupation was entitled to the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VII, and whether letting out the property amounted to abandonment of rights by the original allottee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the competing claims of the original allottee in constructive possession versus the actual occupant tenant under the relevant settlement scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the original allottee or the tenant in actual occupation of a shop is entitled to the transfer thereof under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
  • Does letting out a property by an allottee amount to an abandonment of rights therein for the purposes of transfer under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil Etc. vs Mst. Nazarian and Another1983 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24
  second appealinheritance suitwillappraisal of evidencevariance in judgmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed the respondents' second appeal in an inheritance suit. The petitioners claimed ownership of property through a will executed by the deceased Fazal Din in favour of the first petitioner, which was initially rejected by the trial Court, partially accepted by the District Court, and finally declared not genuine by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the competency and scope of a second appeal against a first appellate judgment of variance, and whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence regarding the genuineness of the will. The Supreme Court held that the second appeal was competent due to the variance in the first appellate judgment, but found no justification to interfere with the High Court's findings as the legal test regarding variance was satisfied and the contentions merely sought an impermissible reappraisal of evidence. The Court laid down that the rules barring second appeals on facts against concurrent findings do not strictly apply when the first appellate judgment is one of variance, and that appellate courts will not re-evaluate evidence without compelling justification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second appeal is competent against a first appellate judgment of variance?
  • Does the rule barring second appeals on facts against concurrent findings apply when the first appellate judgment is one of variance?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent or high court factual findings regarding the genuineness of a will through reappraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Nasir Ahmad Alias Heera and Another1983 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-29
  criminal appealgrave and sudden provocationculpable homicidemurderdying declarationinterested witnessesreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and instead convicted him under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction based on the plea of grave and sudden provocation and rejecting the prosecution's ocular testimony and dying declaration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment was well-founded, noting that the eye-witnesses were interested persons, the exact place of occurrence was doubtful due to the investigating officer's failure to recover blood-stained earth, and the dying declaration could have been influenced. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence regarding the place of occurrence and interested witnesses is doubtful, and the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation is plausible, appellate interference with the reduction of sentence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder is unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on grave and sudden provocation?
  • Can the testimony of interested eye-witnesses who are employees of the deceased be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to recover blood-stained earth create a reasonable doubt as to the exact place of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chiragh and Muhammad Chiragh vs Muhammad Ali Khan1983 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur and Others1983 PLD Supreme Court 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertyplinth areaexcess landSettlement Scheme No. IChief Settlement Commissionerultra vires schemebuilding sitepublic auction
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals against judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of excess open land appurtenant to evacuee houses transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether a transferee of a house under the Act was entitled to purchase land in excess of three times the plinth area pursuant to Paragraph 19 read with Paragraph 1(3) of Settlement Scheme No. I, or whether such excess land was subject to public auction under the revised instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that following the amendment introduced by Ordinance LIII of 1959 adding the second proviso to Section 2(4) of the Act, open land exceeding three times the plinth area ceased to form part of the 'house'. Consequently, Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. I became repugnant to the parent statute and could no longer be invoked to claim automatic transfer of excess land at market value. The Court upheld the validity of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's administrative instructions dated 9-1-1960 and 11-3-1961, affirming that excess area beyond permissible statutory limits was subject to separate disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a transferee of an evacuee house entitled to purchase open land in excess of three times its plinth area under Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. I after the amendment of Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. I become repugnant to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 following the insertion of the second proviso to Section 2(4)?
  • Can administrative instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner validly regulate the disposal of excess evacuee land not forming part of a transferred house?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Zia Ullah and Other1983 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-08
  pre-emptionco-sharershiptransfer of propertyregistered instrumentpart performancerevenue recordsmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal examines whether a plaintiff pre-emptor can enforce a superior right of pre-emption based on an oral purchase of land that violates section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 due to lack of a registered instrument. The core legal question is whether an incomplete or defective sale, failing to meet statutory registration requirements, can confer ownership or co-sharership status necessary to pre-empt another sale. The Supreme Court held that transactions exceeding one rupee in value of tangible immovable property require a registered instrument under section 54, and oral sales incorporated merely through mutations and revenue records do not confer active title, ownership, or co-sharership. Furthermore, the shield of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 cannot be used as a sword by a transferee to assert active rights or claim co-sharership in separate property. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming that revenue entries cannot validate a transaction fundamentally defective under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff enforce a right of pre-emption based on an oral purchase of land that violates section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does an unregistered and defective sale confer ownership or co-sharership status to act as a basis for pre-emption?
  • Can section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be used as a sword by a transferee to claim active rights or title in property?
  • Do entries in revenue records like the Jamabandi create title when the underlying transaction violates statutory registration requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azmim vs Muhammad Yousaf and Other1983 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16
  leave to appealgiftdelivery of possessionframing of issuesrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondents' revision petition and upheld a second gift made in 1970. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reversing findings regarding the delivery of possession for the second gift and whether the failure to frame a specific issue on the validity of the second gift prejudiced the petitioner's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was substance in the contention that the lack of a specific issue deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to produce evidence and challenge the validity of the gift. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to consider the questions raised, and a status quo order was issued.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can reverse a concurrent finding of fact regarding the delivery of possession of a gifted property without a specific issue framed thereon?
  • Does the failure to frame a specific issue regarding the validity of a gift prejudice a party's case at trial by depriving them of the opportunity to produce evidence?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a material question regarding the validity of a gift and absence of a specific issue is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs The State1983 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-10
  Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)TaazirHaddrules of evidenceaccomplice testimonyleave to appealrape
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had altered his conviction under section 10(3) to section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and reduced his sentence for committing rape on a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the strict qualitative and numerical evidentiary requirements prescribed under section 8 for Hadd punishments apply equally to trials and convictions for Taazir under section 10 of the Ordinance, thereby excluding ordinary rules of evidence like the Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court held that the evidentiary standards of section 8 are strictly tied to Hadd punishments and do not govern section 10 (Taazir) proceedings, where ordinary rules of evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872 apply. The court laid down the principle that section 10 offenses are to be adjudicated using standard rules of witness competence and corroboration, such as those in sections 118, 133, and 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872, without importing the Quranic numerical and qualitative prerequisites of section 8. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Do the qualitative and numerical evidentiary requirements prescribed in section 8 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 apply to offenses tried under section 10 for Taazir?
  • Are the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 applicable to proceedings before a court under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a female competent to testify as a witness in proceedings under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a conviction under Taazir require a specific number of witnesses as mandated for Hadd under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan and Others vs Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab and Other1983 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-15
  university examinationspostponement of examinationpowers of syndicatediscretionary authorityeducational institutionsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by medical students challenging the postponement of the Final Professional M.B., B.S. Annual Examination by the University of the Punjab to July 1983. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate to alter examination dates and whether the court should compel the holding of multiple examinations. The Supreme Court held that the Syndicate of the University is lawfully empowered under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 and relevant regulations to fix and alter examination dates in exceptional circumstances, and courts will not normally interfere with the discretionary administrative decisions of university authorities acting within the framework of the law. The key principle laid down is that the fixation of academic examination schedules falls within the exclusive domain of competent university bodies, and judicial review will not extend to substituting administrative discretion unless exercised arbitrarily or without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab is empowered to fix and alter dates for holding professional examinations?
  • Will courts interfere with the discretionary decision of university authorities regarding the postponement of examinations taken within the framework of law?
  • Does the Vice-Chancellor or the Syndicate possess the exclusive competence to determine examination schedules under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and Another vs The State1983 PLD Supreme Court 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-09
  murdercriminal appealmedical evidenceocular testimonycontradictionbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recoveries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding firing distances, the interested and uncorroborated nature of the eyewitnesses, and doubts regarding the recovery evidence. The appeal was consequently accepted, the conviction set aside, and the appellants acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's case can be sustained when the ocular account is directly contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the distance from which shots were fired?
  • Does the testimony of related and chance witnesses require independent corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Whether recovery evidence is rendered doubtful when the investigating officer associates interested witnesses to the recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub alias Nikk a vs The State1983 PLD Supreme Court 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-28
  murderdying declarationeyewitness testimonysingle accusedfalse substitutioncross examinationblood stained knife
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a conviction under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The prosecution case rested on the statement of the deceased recorded as the First Information Report (FIR), eyewitness accounts, and the recovery of a blood-stained knife. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the credibility of chance witnesses, their failure to report the incident immediately or accompany the deceased to the hospital, the non-attestation of the dying declaration by a doctor, and the delayed recovery of the weapon. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to cross-examine witnesses regarding their post-incident conduct prevented adverse inferences. The Court further held that a signed dying declaration by a victim who survived for three days was trustworthy despite lack of medical attestation, and that false substitution of a single accused in broad daylight without strong motive was highly improbable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of an investigating officer to obtain a doctor's attestation invalidates a signed dying declaration?
  • Whether an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the post-incident conduct of witnesses when they were not cross-examined on the point?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained in a single-accused case on the credible testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses supported by a dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and Another vs The State1983 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-19
  leave to appealre-examination of evidenceconvictionsentence reductioneye-witness testimonymurderhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, Muhammad Ayub and Abdullah, for murder and hurt. The petitioners were originally convicted by the trial court for the murder of Hakim Ali and causing injuries to Hakim (P.W.), with Muhammad Ayub receiving a death sentence and Abdullah receiving life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently reduced Muhammad Ayub's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted Abdullah of the murder charge, considering his time served sufficient for the hurt offense. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the evidence, specifically the reliance on the testimony of a single injured eye-witness despite the trial court's rejection of motive evidence and weapon recoveries, warrants a re-examination of the convictions. The Supreme Court, finding the case fit for further scrutiny, granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of judicial review in criminal matters where evidentiary findings are contested, particularly regarding the reliability of solitary eye-witness testimony in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case fit for leave to appeal where the trial court rejected motive and recovery evidence but relied solely on an injured eye-witness?
  • Can a High Court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment while acquitting a co-accused of murder based on the same evidentiary record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1983 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-27
  rapeHudood Ordinanceappellate jurisdictionretrospective effectocular evidenceforensic evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for the offence of rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which had been upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appeal was competently heard by the High Court, given a subsequent amendment to the Ordinance transferring appellate jurisdiction to the Federal Shariat Court, and whether the conviction was supported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that since the conviction occurred before the amendment, the High Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction, as the amendment lacked retrospective effect. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries and forensic analysis of blood-stained articles recovered from the scene, conclusively established the prosecution's case. The Court affirmed that ocular evidence supported by consistent medical and forensic findings is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment to the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 regarding appellate jurisdiction apply retrospectively to cases already decided by the High Court?
  • Is a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 sustainable based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Which court has appellate jurisdiction over a conviction by a Sessions Judge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 prior to the amendment of Section 20?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Shaukat Ali and Another1983 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentregistered sale deedprior purchasespecific performancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent to the respondents, who had purchased the premises via a registered sale deed from the original owner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's plea of prior purchase and pendency of a specific performance suit exempted him from paying rent to the current registered owners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ejectment order was properly made, as the petitioner failed to establish his plea of prior purchase before the Rent Controller by tendering the original document, and could not even report the fate of his civil suit filed in 1978. The court affirmed that a tenant cannot withhold rent from a landlord holding a registered sale deed without establishing a valid legal title through admissible evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pending suit for specific performance regarding a property excuse a tenant from paying rent to the holder of a registered sale deed?
  • Can a plea of prior purchase be sustained before a Rent Controller without tendering the original document of purchase?
  • Is an ejectment order justified when a tenant fails to pay rent and cannot substantiate a claim of ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Gill vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communications & Works Departments1983 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-07
  civil serviceseniority listnecessary partyexhaustion of remediespromotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment dismissing his challenge to the promotion of colleagues and the maintenance of seniority lists. The petitioner raised three grievances: improper promotion practices in 1973, errors in a 1974 seniority list, and the failure to prepare or maintain a seniority list since 1976. The Supreme Court held that the first two grievances could not be adjudicated because the petitioner failed to implead the specific individuals whose promotions or seniority positions were being challenged, rendering any decision on eligibility or legality impossible in their absence. Regarding the third grievance, the Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the necessary administrative remedies—specifically, calling upon the responsible officer to prepare the list and representing the matter to higher authorities before approaching the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no question of law or public importance warranting interference and refused leave to appeal, emphasizing the necessity of impleading affected parties and exhausting departmental remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court adjudicate a challenge to promotions or seniority lists without impleading the individuals whose positions are being challenged?
  • Is it necessary for a civil servant to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal regarding the non-preparation of a seniority list?
  • Does the failure to implead necessary parties preclude judicial determination of the legality of promotion actions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Another vs The State1983 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-14
  leave to appealmurderretrialself-defenceappreciation of evidencepartisan evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a criminal trial in which the petitioners were convicted of murder and causing injuries. The incident involved a clash between two rival parties resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The Lahore High Court had previously set aside the initial convictions and ordered a retrial. Upon retrial, the petitioners were again convicted, which convictions were maintained by the High Court with a modification regarding the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, while co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and the sustainability of the convictions in light of the defense's version of self-defence and partisan evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the participation of the petitioners was established beyond doubt by the medical evidence and their own admissions, and that the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the plea of self-defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether convictions can be maintained when the defense admits participation and presence at the scene but pleads self-defence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the lower courts regarding the plea of self-defence?
  • Whether minor injuries on the accused are sufficient to substantiate a plea of self-defence against multiple severe injuries inflicted on the complainant party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1983 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05
  pre-arrest bailtheftproclaimed offendercancellation of bailcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the refusal of the Lahore High Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of theft under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a driver, was alleged to have stolen his employer's vehicle and sold it. While the petitioner claimed ownership based on a receipt of purchase, the investigation revealed that the alleged seller denied issuing such a document. Furthermore, the State demonstrated that the petitioner had a history of criminal involvement and had absconded following the cancellation of his interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, resulting in him being declared a proclaimed offender. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of the disputed evidence and his conduct. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal, dismissed the petition, and withdrew the interim bail previously granted, emphasizing that the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender and the questionable nature of his defense precluded relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner who has been declared a proclaimed offender entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the denial of the authenticity of a document by the alleged signatory justify the refusal of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Others vs The State1983 PLD Supreme Court 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-31
  murderconcessional testimonyocular evidencecircumstantial evidencestandard of proofmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the death sentence of the primary appellant was confirmed by the High Court. The prosecution case was supported by three eye-witnesses, but during cross-examination, one eye-witness stated he did not actually see the physical infliction of the blows, though he witnessed the chase and the immediate aftermath. The core legal question was whether such testimony, characterized as concessional, disqualified the witness as an eye-witness, and whether the evidence met the standard of proof. The Supreme Court held that under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872, a fact is proved when, after considering the matters before it, a prudent man would act upon the belief of its existence. Since the witness saw the accused chasing the victim with weapons and running away immediately after, with no other possible assailants present, the evidence constituted direct ocular proof. The Court affirmed the convictions and found no mitigating circumstances for reducing the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an eye-witness's admission that they did not see the actual physical impact of a weapon disqualify their testimony if they witnessed the immediate chase and aftermath?
  • How should a court evaluate the testimony of a prosecution witness who makes a statement beneficial to the accused during cross-examination?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under the definition of 'proved' in the Evidence Act where the witnesses did not see the physical plunge of the weapon but witnessed the chase and immediate flight of the accused?
  • Does a physical altercation or slap occurring three days prior to a homicide constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to reduce a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs Mst. Hadayat Bibi and Other1983 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14
  mutation of inheritancelimitationremand of casefactual inquiryleave to appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court which accepted the respondent's writ petition and directed the revision of a mutation of inheritance to include her name as a legal heir, setting aside the lower authority's dismissal of her appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether the High Court, upon holding that limitation was irrelevant to inheritance mutations, could proceed to summarily order the inclusion of the claimant's name despite a factual controversy raised by the petitioner, instead of remanding the matter for a proper inquiry. The Supreme Court held that where a party has controverted the assertions of the claimant and the matter requires factual inquiry and the recording of evidence, the appropriate course for the High Court is to remand the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision on merits rather than deciding the factual controversy itself. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted to consider this contention, and the operation of the impugned High Court order was suspended.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of limitation is relevant in the case of mutation of inheritance?
  • Is it proper for the High Court to order the incorporation of a legal heir's name in a mutation without a factual inquiry when the claim has been controverted?
  • Whether the High Court should remand a case to the revenue authority for a decision on merits when the lower authority dismissed the matter solely on limitation grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And Others vs Muhammad Maqbool and Other1983 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-11
  rent restrictionengine-repair shopfindings of factleave to appealtenant appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the tenants' appeal by the High Court regarding the ejectment proceedings involving an engine-repair shop. The core legal question was whether the shop in question constituted an industry and thus fell outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower forums—determining that the premises was merely an engine-repair shop and not an industry—were unexceptionable and could not be reopened. Consequently, the Court declined to examine whether an industry housed in a building would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the nature of a rented property can be reopened before the Supreme Court?
  • Does an engine-repair shop fall outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance as an industry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1983 SCMR 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-26
  bail cancellationcriminal appealleave to appealpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Arif against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 6-2-1983, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to him by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the cancellation of bail by the High Court was justified under the circumstances of the case. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, and examining the orders of the lower courts along with the statement of the prosecutrix, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that it was a fit case for the grant of bail. The Court accordingly set aside the cancellation and granted bail to the appellant subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where a case is considered fit for bail upon review of the record and without prejudicing the merits of the prosecution case, the appellate court will restore bail to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and dispose of it accordingly?
  • Is the High Court's order cancelling bail subject to interference by the Supreme Court when the case is deemed fit for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1983 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04
  extra-judicial confessionresiling eye-witnessesballistic reportstock witnessmitigating circumstancestransportation for lifeSection 382-B CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal, filed by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, challenged the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his stepmother. The prosecution alleged that following a domestic dispute over marriage arrangements, the appellant shot the victim in the presence of his father and another witness. Although both eye-witnesses resiled from their statements at trial, the prosecution relied upon one eye-witness's transferred testimony from the committing Magistrate, an extra-judicial confession made to the appellant's employer, and positive forensic matching of a crime empty recovered from the spot with the surrendered pistol. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the conviction could be sustained principally upon the extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence. Upholding the guilt, the Court held that where extra-judicial confession and recovery evidence inspire confidence, formal corroboration is unnecessary. The Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, granting benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 PPC can be sustained on the basis of a credible extra-judicial confession corroborated by forensic recovery?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove that pellets and wads belonged to the same cartridge when the empty casing is forensically matched to the crime pistol?
  • Does the resiling of eye-witnesses at trial preclude reliance on their statements properly transferred from the Committing Magistrate's court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and Others vs The State1983 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01
  post-arrest bailmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencemurderbail stageexpert testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to three petitioners charged with murder and attempted murder under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on the contention that the deceased died instantly from a gunshot wound, rendering subsequent dagger blows inflicted by the petitioners as injuries to a dead body, thus negating criminal liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appreciation of complex medical evidence—specifically the timing of death relative to the injuries—cannot be undertaken at the bail stage. The Court ruled that such factual determinations must be deferred until the medical expert is examined and cross-examined at trial. The principle laid down is that where specific roles and injuries are attributed to accused persons in the First Information Report, and medical evidence is contested, it is premature to grant bail before the expert witness has testified, as the court should not conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court evaluate complex medical evidence regarding the timing of death at the bail stage?
  • Is it appropriate to grant bail when the accused is specifically named in the FIR for inflicting injuries, pending the examination of medical experts?
  • Should a court conduct a mini-trial to determine the sequence of injuries during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The State1983 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-01
  sodomycriminal appealleave to appealsentence reductioncomputation of sentencecompensation to complainant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offense of sodomy. The petitioner was initially convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with compensation awarded to the complainant under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon appeal, the Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to four years, while maintaining the fine and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of the sentence. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, found no substantial question of law or any error in the lower courts' judgments that would suggest a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the lower courts had correctly adjudicated the matter without legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appellate court have the authority to reduce a sentence of imprisonment while maintaining a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences involving fines and imprisonment?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of conviction by lower courts in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1983 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-09
  anti-corruptiondisproportionate assetsliving beyond meansappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingsPrevention of Corruption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core issue before the Court was whether the concurrent findings of guilt—based on the petitioner acquiring property and possessing assets disproportionate to his known and legitimate sources of income—were grounded in properly appraised evidence or vitiated by conjectures and surmises. The petitioner had been found in possession of a residential house and an unaccounted-for bank balance of Rs. 64,017 in the National Bank of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that both courts below had thoroughly considered all relevant points and that the conviction was based on a proper appraisal of the evidence rather than mere speculation. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant's inability to satisfactorily account for pecuniary resources and assets disproportionate to their known sources of income sustains a conviction under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by lower courts based on proper appraisal of evidence regarding disproportionate assets warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does possession of an unexplained bank balance and residential property constitute sufficient evidence to establish the charge of living beyond one's means under the anti-corruption law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan and Another vs Malik Muhammad Ibrahim and Another1983SCMR824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03
  evacuee propertyagreement to sellpart performanceleave to appealspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents. The core legal question concerned whether an agreement to sell an evacuee property executed by petitioner No. 1 prior to its transfer in favor of petitioner No. 2 (his son) was binding, and whether the petitioners could seek the ejectment of the respondents notwithstanding the part performance of the agreement and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while there might be force in the legal submissions regarding the binding nature of the agreement on the transferee under evacuee laws, the petitioners could not be permitted to resile from the agreement and seek ejectment after receiving the consideration and placing the respondents in possession, relying on technical pleas. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell executed by a person prior to the transfer of an evacuee shop is binding on the subsequent transferee?
  • Can a party be allowed to resile from an agreement to sell and seek ejectment after accepting consideration and handing over possession on technical legal pleas?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Another vs The State1983 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-19
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityabsconding accusedrevision petitionleave to appealattachment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had acted as sureties for an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25 each. Upon the accused absconding, the bail was cancelled, and the bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited. Following the petitioners' failure to respond to a show-cause notice regarding the recovery of the bond amount, the court ordered their detention in civil prison for six months and subsequently directed the attachment and sale of their immovable property. The petitioners sought a reduction of the forfeiture amount in revision, which the High Court dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the impugned order, found no legal flaw in the reasoning of the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the forfeiture and recovery proceedings initiated against the sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the attachment and sale of a surety's immovable property upon the forfeiture of a bail bond?
  • Is a surety liable for the full amount of a bail bond if the accused absconds?
  • Does a High Court have the authority to dismiss a revision petition in limine regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Alias Muhammad vs The State1983 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28
  murdervicarious liabilityocular testimonysentencingdeath penaltyunlawful assemblycommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from convictions under sections 302 and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in the face of conflicting ballistic evidence and the appropriate sentencing when the specific fatal shot cannot be attributed to a particular assailant among several participants. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were well-founded based on consistent ocular evidence, which remained reliable despite minor discrepancies and the absence of corroborative ballistic findings. The Court affirmed the principle of vicarious liability under section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for the offence committed in prosecution of their common object. Regarding sentencing, the Court established that where the infliction of the solitary fatal injury cannot be attributed with certainty to one of several assailants whose participation is otherwise established, the death penalty is not appropriate, and a sentence of life imprisonment should be substituted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of ballistic evidence to match recovered weapons invalidate convictions based on consistent ocular testimony?
  • Can members of an unlawful assembly be held vicariously liable for murder under section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even if the specific fatal shot cannot be attributed to them?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate when the specific assailant who fired the fatal shot cannot be identified among several participants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Alias Nikkoo vs The State1983 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26
  rapeHudood lawscorroboration of evidencefalse implicationcriminal appealappreciation of evidenceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence for the offence of rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, specifically the testimony of the prosecutrix, was sufficiently corroborated and whether the petitioner's defence of false implication and substitution of identity was credible. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and adequately corroborated by independent witnesses. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea that he was falsely implicated to cover up a consensual act with another person, noting the lack of evidence supporting such a claim and the fact that the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for why the police, who were allegedly biased in his favour, did not pursue his version of events. The Court affirmed the conviction, establishing that where prosecution evidence is consistent and corroborated, and the defence's alternative narrative lacks evidentiary support, the conviction must be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case sufficient for conviction if corroborated by independent witnesses?
  • Does the failure of the police to register a case as per the accused's version undermine the prosecution's case when the accused's defence lacks evidentiary support?
  • Can a conviction be upheld when the accused admits to the occurrence of sexual intercourse but disputes the identity of the perpetrator?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Muhammad Ijaz Alias Jajju and Other1983 SCMR 102(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15
  acquittaldying declarationcircumstantial evidenceocular evidenceleave to appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner challenges the acquittal of the respondents, raising specific legal questions regarding the appreciation of evidence. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a dying declaration provided by an independent witness, the significance of minor injuries on an accused person as circumstantial evidence of their presence at the scene, the impact of a established motive, and the sufficiency of evidence available in a pending State appeal against acquittal. The Court, upon preliminary hearing, found these points sufficiently substantial to warrant further examination. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents to address these contentions, specifically noting that the State appeal against acquittal had already been admitted against one of the co-accused. The holding is procedural, directing the matter to be set for a formal hearing to determine whether the acquittal warrants interference based on the grounds urged by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an independent witness regarding a dying declaration constitute sufficient evidence to challenge an acquittal?
  • Can minor injuries on an accused person, contemporaneous with the time of occurrence, serve as strong circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  • Does the existence of a strong motive, combined with other evidence, warrant a re-examination of an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Tie State1983 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06
  post-arrest bailleave to appealconflicting versionsfurther inquirymurderrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the existence of two differing versions of the prosecution case during investigation, attributing materially different roles, warranted the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that since the motive for the crime and the main role were consistently attributed to the petitioner in both versions, alongside the recovery of an unlicensed gun, the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage, and the High Court committed no error of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of bail and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of two differing versions of the prosecution case during investigation makes it a case for further inquiry justifying bail?
  • Does the consistent attribution of motive and a material role in multiple prosecution versions disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • When does the recovery of an unlicensed weapon influence the grant or refusal of bail in a violent crime case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1983 SCMR I · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03
  criminal appealocular testimonycorroborationrecovery of weaponjoint possessionbenefit of doubtmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The trial court and the High Court had relied on ocular testimony corroborated by the alleged recovery of a firearm to sustain the conviction. The core legal question was whether the recovery of the weapon, conducted in the presence of interested witnesses and from a place of joint possession, constituted valid corroboration of the ocular evidence. The Supreme Court held that the recovery procedure was legally flawed, as it failed to involve independent, disinterested witnesses despite their availability, and the location of the recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. Consequently, the Court ruled that the recovery evidence was unreliable and could not serve as corroboration. Having discarded this piece of evidence, the Court found the prosecution case against the appellant indistinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been acquitted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's acquittal. The principle established is that recoveries made without independent witnesses from places of joint possession are insufficient for corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a recovery of an incriminating article from a place of joint possession serve as valid corroboration of ocular testimony?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon admissible as evidence when the procedure fails to involve independent and disinterested witnesses from the locality?
  • Does the failure to corroborate ocular testimony through reliable evidence entitle an accused to an acquittal when co-accused have been acquitted on similar grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Sohail and 11 Others vs Government of Punjab and Other1983 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-09
  ad hoc appointmentsenioritycivil judgesregularizationservice tribunalcadre
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals, brought by special leave, challenge a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellants' seniority appeals. The core legal question concerns whether civil judges initially appointed on an ad hoc, temporary basis to clear a backlog of judicial work could claim seniority from their initial date of appointment rather than from their subsequent regular absorption into the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The Supreme Court held that the appellants were appointed purely on an ad hoc and temporary basis for a specific purpose outside the regular service cadre, with no guarantee of absorption or adherence to the recruitment rules at the inception. Consequently, they did not become members of the service until their formal absorption and regularization by the Governor, and therefore could not claim seniority over regularly appointed civil judges from the date of their initial ad hoc entry. The key principle laid down is that ad hoc appointments made outside the applicable service rules for a specific, temporary objective do not confer membership or seniority rights under those rules until the incumbents are formally absorbed into the regular cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Can civil judges appointed on an ad hoc basis for clearing a backlog of cases claim seniority from their initial date of appointment rather than the date of regularization?
  • Does an ad hoc appointment made outside the applicable service rules confer membership in the service cadre for the purpose of determining seniority?
  • Whether Rule 9 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules 1962 applies to persons who are not yet members of the service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 2 Other1983 SCMR 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08
  Intra-Court AppealLaw Reforms Ordinancewrit jurisdictioncompetency of appealstatutory repealLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the competency of an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The petitioner challenged a Division Bench order that had dismissed his Letters Patent Appeal as incompetent, citing the proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which bars appeals where the underlying law provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review. The petitioner contended that because the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, had repealed the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the order in question was passed by a notified officer under the Repeal Act against whom no further appeal or revision lay, the bar under the Law Reforms Ordinance did not apply. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the question of whether the Intra-Court Appeal was competent given the statutory repeal and the absence of further appellate remedies requires further consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, bar an Intra-Court Appeal when the underlying order was passed by a notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against an order passed by a Single Judge under Article 199 of the Constitution if the law applicable to the original proceedings provided no further appeal, revision, or review?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhabbati vs Noor Barkha and Other1983 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-22
  special leave to appealmurderacquittalcircumstantial evidencecorroborationrevaluation of evidencebail non-bailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents for the murder of Saeed Muhammad based on ocular testimony, recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes, and an established motive arising from a past abduction and family enmity. The High Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution witnesses were closely related and their testimony lacked independent corroboration. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court committed a grave error and potential miscarriage of justice by entirely omitting to consider crucial circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of incriminating blood-stained articles and weapons. The Supreme Court held that the failure of the High Court to evaluate material circumstantial evidence warrants a fresh examination of the evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondents, laying down that the wholesale disregard of corroborative circumstantial evidence by an appellate court vitiates an acquittal and justifies interference by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of an appellate court to consider material circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes, constitutes a ground for granting leave to appeal against acquittal?
  • Can the testimony of related eyewitnesses be discarded entirely without evaluating supporting circumstantial evidence?
  • Whether the non-consideration of incriminating evidence by the High Court leads to a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mu. Dino Manekji Chinoy and 8 Others vs Muhammad Matin1983 PLD Supreme Court 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-13
  temporary injunctionspecific performancepre-presentation noticeinterlocutory appealprocedural lawlease deedfirst preference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of a judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Sind, which set aside a Single Judge's order refusing a temporary injunction in a specific performance suit and granted an injunction restraining the registration of a sale in favor of third-party purchasers, subject to the plaintiff depositing Rs. 15 lacs. The core legal questions involved the mandatory nature of notice requirements under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 upon filing an appeal during a pending suit, and whether a concluded contract of sale existed under the terms of a lease deed. The Supreme Court held that while the issuance of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 is obligatory and a condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal, procedural laws must be interpreted as tools to facilitate rather than thwart justice. If the substance of the rule is met and no prejudice is caused, non-compliance does not inevitably warrant dismissal. The Court declined to interfere with the discretionary grant of interim relief given the impending conclusion of the main suit. The key principle laid down is that procedural requirements, such as pre-presentation notice in interlocutory appeals, must be applied substantially rather than technically to prevent defeating the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding pre-presentation notice of appeal are mandatory and condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal?
  • Does non-compliance with the notice requirement under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 inevitably result in the dismissal of an interlocutory appeal?
  • Do the provisions of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to appeals filed under section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 against interlocutory orders of a Single Judge in original civil jurisdiction?
  • Whether procedural provisions should be treated as rules of convenience and expediency to serve justice rather than strict stumbling blocks?
  Read full judgment →