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.

• State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Versus Water and Power Development Authority1988 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Mai Versus Qasim1988 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20
  criminal appealacquittalappraisal of evidenceleave to appealabductionrape
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions filed by Mst. Mumtaz Mai challenge the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which acquitted the respondents Qasim, Talib Hussain, and Rashid Ahmad of charges under sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly applied the well-established principles of appraisal of evidence in criminal cases while acquitting the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted a thorough examination of the appraisal of evidence by the High Court and consequently granted leave to appeal in all three petitions, directing the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondents and scheduling an early hearing for the appeals. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to examine an acquittal where questions arise regarding the proper application of principles governing the appraisal of evidence by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the well-established principles of appraisal of evidence in criminal cases were correctly applied by the High Court in acquitting the respondents?
  • Is leave to appeal properly granted against an acquittal when the appreciation of evidence by the High Court requires examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Zahid Javid Butt1988 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22
  leave to appealappraisal of evidenceocular testimonybenefit of doubtmurdercriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was brought by the brother of the deceased against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed the convicts' appeal, dismissed the State appeal, and refused to confirm the death sentence of respondent Zahid Javid Butt. The prosecution alleged that the respondents killed the deceased with a churri during a political agitation due to a previous altercation. The trial court had convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted them by rejecting the eye-witness testimony due to a discrepancy regarding the time of the injured witness's medical examination relative to his presence with the dead body. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony on minor grounds. The Supreme Court held that the case of Zahid Javed required re-examination of evidence regarding the appraisal of criminal testimony, granting leave to appeal partially for Zahid Javed while dismissing the petition against co-respondent Hamid Javed. The principle laid down is that minor discrepancies or casual admissions should not form the sole basis for wholesale rejection of otherwise credible ocular testimony without proper evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be discarded solely on the basis of a minor discrepancy regarding the time of his medical examination?
  • Can the High Court reject eye-witness testimony as interested on legally insufficient grounds without proper appraisal of evidence?
  • Is a co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt where contradictions exist regarding his specific role and participation in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Versus Nawab Din1988 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21
  leave to appealcriminal revisionculpable homicidemurderappreciation of evidencesolitary injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision against the respondent's conviction under section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code instead of section 302, Pakistan Penal Code in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the trial court and High Court erred in convicting the respondent under section 304, Part II rather than section 302, Pakistan Penal Code given the circumstances of the solitary injury and lack of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that although technical errors might exist, the appeal would not ultimately succeed on substance, as re-examination of evidence could at most alter the conviction to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code without changing the practical outcome. The court laid down the principle that leave to appeal will be refused where a re-appraisal of evidence is unlikely to alter the substantial outcome or remedy a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where re-examination of evidence would not alter the substantial outcome of the case?
  • Does a solitary injury inflicted without premeditation warrant a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When can a conviction under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained in place of a murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Versus State1988 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailunlawful assemblymurderabuse of concessioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail of the petitioners who were involved in a case registered under sections 302, 429, 149, 109, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for forming an unlawful assembly, firing at the complainant party, and causing a death and the killing of an animal. The petitioners were initially granted bail by the High Court based on favorable police investigation reports. Subsequently, the High Court cancelled their bail due to the registration of subsequent FIRs indicating that the petitioners were intimidating and assaulting members of the complainant party. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the cancellation of bail for misuse of concession. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal for certain petitioners and granted them bail subject to surety bonds, while refusing leave for the remaining petitioners. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be cancelled if the accused abuses the concession of bail by intimidating or assaulting the complainant party.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail once granted be cancelled if the accused abuses the concession by intimidating the complainant party?
  • Whether subsequent registration of FIRs against the accused for intimidation constitutes sufficient ground for bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aley Nabi Versus Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1988 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Versus Additional Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• Riazul Haque Versus Abdul Samad1988 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus Manzoor Hussain1988 SCMR 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Versus Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore1988 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23
  settlement lawstransfer of propertydiscretionary jurisdictionleave to appealurban property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a dispute over the transfer of a double-storeyed premises situated in Lahore Cantt, currently occupied by three parties: the petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent Amanullah, and respondent Fazal Ahmad. The core legal question concerns the proper transfer and allocation of urban property under settlement laws among competing occupants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's decision to accommodate each occupant in the specific portion long in their respective occupation was just and fair. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, laying down the principle that equitable distribution reflecting long-standing occupation will generally not be disturbed by the apex court in discretionary review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment that equitably divides property among long-standing occupants?
  • Is the grant of leave to appeal under discretionary jurisdiction warranted when the impugned order achieves a just and fair result?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Versus Sakhi Muhammad1988 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  criminal petitionfree fightindividual liabilityalteration of convictionreduction of sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of the respondents in a criminal case arising from a clash between closely related parties. The core legal question concerns the justification for altering convictions and reducing sentences after finding that a free fight had occurred between the parties where each member of the accused party was held responsible for their individual acts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in its appraisal of the evidence regarding the free fight and individual liability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that interference is unwarranted where the lower court properly assesses the evidence in sudden mutual clashes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering convictions and reducing sentences upon finding that a sudden free fight occurred between related parties?
  • Is each member of an accused party to be held responsible only for their individual act in the absence of a common object in a free fight?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings regarding the appraisal of evidence in criminal revision matters without strong grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul Versus State1988 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-16
  benefit of doubtdacoityidentification paradetracker evidencerecovery of stolen propertycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Special Judge Court for Speedy Trial, convicting four appellants under Section 394/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fines. The core legal question concerns the safety of relying on uncorroborated eye-witness testimony, flawed identification parades, doubtful tracker evidence, and suspicious delayed recoveries of stolen property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences by giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witness accounts are improbable, identification parades lack specification of individual roles, tracker evidence is compromised by trampled footprints at a busy crime scene, and recoveries suffer from severe police padding and lack of independent local corroboration, the prosecution's case fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained solely on the basis of a sole eye-witness whose conduct and varying versions render him unreliable?
  • Does an identification parade lose its efficacy if the witness fails to describe the specific role played by each accused during the commission of the offence?
  • Is tracker evidence reliable when footprints are taken from a busy highway subject to heavy public and police movement after the incident?
  • What is the evidentiary value of belated recoveries of stolen property made from open and unprotected premises without independent local witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Jala Versus Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, 'Punjab, Lahore1988 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  petition for leave to appealrevenue matterwrit petitionboard of revenueSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court as a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court passed on 27 July 1980 in a writ petition. The core legal question involves the correctness of the High Court's judgment concerning revenue matters, which was previously examined by this Court in a connected matter. The Supreme Court holds that since the challenge mounted to the correctness of the impugned High Court order was already found to be infirm and dismissed in a previously reported judgment involving the same common judgment, the instant petition cannot succeed either. Consequently, the Court dismisses the petition for leave to appeal, following the precedent set in the earlier connected case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the High Court must fail when a connected petition arising from the same judgment has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Fauzia Parveen Alias Fauzia Tiwana Versus Sahib Khatoon1988 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-26
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreeminor representationguardian ad litemsubstituted servicePardahnashin ladiesconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil suit instituted by the appellant seeking a declaration of legitimacy and a share in the estate of the deceased. An ex parte decree was passed against the respondents, some of whom were minors and Pardahnashin ladies, after a transfer of the suit. The respondents subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed by the District Judge and upheld in limine by the High Court upon finding that service of summons was defective and that minor respondents were not properly represented by their guardian ad litem who had failed to perform her duties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's view. Holding that the courts below correctly exercised their discretion in setting aside the ex parte decree given the lack of proper service and the negligence of the guardian representing the minor respondents, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that courts must remain vigilant as custodians of minors' interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte decree can be set aside on the ground of defective service and lack of proper representation of minor defendants?
  • What is the duty of the court when a guardian ad litem fails to perform their duty in representing minor defendants during a suit?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts regarding the insufficiency of service of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Versus Ghulam Muhammad1988 SCMR 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  partition suitburden of proofexecution of documentattesting witnessessettlement propertyestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership and partition of a house transferred by the Settlement Department. The respondent, Ghulam Mohammad, filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the property. The petitioner, Mohammad Shafi, contested this, asserting that the respondent had transferred his share to him via a document dated 29th November 1972, and that the respondent was estopped from claiming partition due to prior conduct and agreements. The trial court granted a preliminary decree for partition, which was initially reversed on appeal but subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the petitioner had successfully proven the execution of the alleged transfer document (Ex.D/1). The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof, as he did not produce any of the four attesting witnesses to the document, and the testimony of the scribe was rightly disbelieved by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, upholding the partition decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving the execution of a disputed document lie on the party relying upon it?
  • Can a document be considered proved if the attesting witnesses are not produced to testify?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding the non-execution of a document by the lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadamir Qasmi Versus Muhammad Idreesy1988 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad Versus Muhammad Rafiq Zahid1988 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan Versus Election Authority, Punjab, Lahore1988 SCMR 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12
  election disputewrit petitionelection tribunalalternative remedylocal government electionballot papers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which arose from a dispute in a local government election to a Union Council where the Presiding Officer referred the tied election to the Returning Officer due to a tense situation and power failure, and the Returning Officer decided the result through the spin of a coin. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedies were already invoked. The Supreme Court held that matters regarding the validity of ballot papers and the propriety of the Returning Officer's method of deciding the election fall primarily within the exclusive domain of the Election Tribunal, before which proceedings were already pending. The Court affirmed that constitutional writ jurisdiction ought not to be prematurely invoked when adequate alternative remedies are available and pursued, consequently dismissing the petition with costs for unnecessary litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disputes regarding the rejection or acceptance of ballot papers and the determination of election results should be decided by an Election Tribunal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has already approached the Election Tribunal for the same relief?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction under the circumstances was justified?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadazeem Versus State1988 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ali Versus Atta Muhammad1988 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  petition for leave to appealsudden fightcommon intentionmurderculpable homicideinjuries on both sidescriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12 February 1985, which modified the convictions and sentences of the respondents originally tried under section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and causing injuries. The High Court had set aside the murder and attempt to murder convictions, instead convicting the respondents under lesser provisions including section 304 Part II, section 324, and section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a finding that a sudden fight had occurred without previous enmity, and injuries were sustained by both sides. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the original convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted as the High Court correctly concluded that the incident was a sudden fight where liability was properly fixed individually. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down that in cases of sudden mutual fights with injuries on both sides and no prior enmity, individual criminal liability corresponding to specific injuries is appropriately determined rather than invoking joint liability under section 34.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code when an occurrence takes place in the form of a sudden fight?
  • Can joint criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained in the absence of previous enmity and where injuries are sustained by both competing parties?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's reappraisal of evidence regarding sudden provocation and individual attribution of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus State1988 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-26
  post-arrest bailunlawful assemblyabductionmurderaffidavits of witnessesdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing their post-arrest bail application in a case involving the abduction and subsequent murder of two persons. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly that forcibly abducted the deceased persons, and they were apprehended at the spot where the dead bodies were recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds of being empty-handed, having filed affidavits from prosecution witnesses supporting their innocence, and the delay in the commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court held that prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the affidavits of prosecution witnesses could not be evaluated at the bail stage. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that close involvement in an abduction leading to murder disentitles an accused to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while leaving open the remedy to renew the bail application if the trial suffers inordinate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person apprehended at the spot of a double murder following an abduction is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can affidavits sworn by prosecution witnesses in favor of the accused be evaluated at the bail stage to override direct incriminating allegations?
  • Does a delay of two years in the commencement of a trial constitute inordinate delay warranting the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus State1988 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  petition for leave to appealmurderacquittalocular testimonymedical evidencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents, sentencing some to death and one to life imprisonment, based on an incident resulting in the deaths of two persons, arising from a land dispute. The petitioner challenged the High Court's rejection of the motive version and its finding of material discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned judgment, the statements of the eye-witnesses, and the medical evidence, and concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when ocular testimony and medical evidence contain material discrepancies?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be sustained against the rejection of a motive version by the High Court?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court set aside an appellate court's judgment acquitting persons charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Suleman1988 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencegrievous hurtcompensationcriminal appealintention to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convictions of the respondents under sections 326 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their sentences to the period already undergone. The respondents were originally charged with murder, but the trial court convicted them for causing grievous hurt and hurt, respectively, following an incident where the deceased died twenty days later due to complications from knife wounds. The petitioner challenged the adequacy of the sentences, arguing that the injuries were inflicted with the intention to murder, thereby warranting a conviction for murder rather than lesser offences. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the trial court failed to impose mandatory compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the potential enhancement of the sentence under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and to consider the imposition of compensation under section 544-A and section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to impose compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a legal error requiring correction?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of enhancing a sentence imposed by the High Court?
  • Is the imposition of fine under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in cases involving grievous hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Nlahmooda Sultana Versus Jamila Begum1988 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Versus State1988 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09
  leave to appealmurderenhancement of sentenceconstructive liabilityalteration of sentencereappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the death sentences of the convict-petitioners to life imprisonment for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and set aside the murder convictions under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for four co-accused, convicting them instead under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant sought enhancement of sentences and challenged the partial acquittals. The core legal questions involved the propriety of altering sentences from death to life imprisonment and setting aside constructive liability convictions under section 149 when eyewitness testimony was found credible. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that arguable points were raised regarding the reappraisal of evidence and justification for altering sentences and acquitting co-accused. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to both the convict-petitioners and the complainant for the safe dispensation of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside convictions under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when eyewitnesses were found to be present and reliable?
  • Is the absence of proof of an immediate cause a sufficient ground to alter a death sentence to imprisonment for life for a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused of murder and their conviction under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was legally sustainable based on the nature of simple injuries caused by blunt weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Versus State1988 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Versus Abdul Aziz1988 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation Versus Rashid Ahmed1988 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-21
  right of appealpending proceedingsLabour Appellate TribunalIndustrial Relations Ordinanceretrospective operationsubstantive right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court addressed whether an appeal lies to the Labour Appellate Tribunal against a decision of the Labour Court in a matter pending when the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (XLVIII of 1972) came into force, which Ordinance deleted subsection (3) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent's service termination dispute was pending before the Labour Court upon the promulgation of the amending Ordinance, and the Labour Court subsequently ruled in his favor, after which the Labour Appellate Tribunal heard and allowed the employer's appeal. The High Court, however, held the appeal to be not maintainable under section 28 of the amending Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that a right of appeal is a substantive right that accrues on the date the proceedings are instituted, and such a right survives an amendment unless taken away retrospectively or by necessary intendment, neither of which applied here. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, affirming that the right of appeal against the Labour Court's decision in pending proceedings survived the statutory amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the Labour Appellate Tribunal against a decision of the Labour Court in a matter pending at the time of the promulgation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972?
  • Whether the right of appeal against an order of the Labour Court survives the deletion of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can a substantive right of appeal be taken away without express retrospective words or necessary intendment in an amending statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulab Versus Muhammad Sadiq1988 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  special leave to appealacquittalappreciation of evidenceright of self-defencecriminal appealprosecution versiondefence version
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted four respondents and upheld the acquittal of four others previously tried for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial Magistrate had convicted four respondents for various offences, including attempted murder and causing hurt, while acquitting the remaining four. The High Court, in a common judgment, acquitted the convicted respondents and dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the others, citing the complainant party's attempt to implicate the entire accused family and finding support for the defence's version of self-defence through ballistic evidence. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for disbelieving the prosecution case and misappreciated the evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the case presented features requiring deeper scrutiny regarding whether the acquittals were recorded based on correct legal principles and proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court's failure to provide specific reasons for disbelieving prosecution evidence in an acquittal warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Can an appellate court's preference for a defence version over the prosecution version be challenged if it lacks proper appreciation of the evidence?
  • Is the acquittal of respondents sustainable when the High Court relies on the complainant's attempt to implicate an entire family as a basis for reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Versus State1988 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  private defenseculpable homicideexceeding right of self-defensecriminal appealconviction modificationPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that modified the petitioners' convictions from Section 304, Part II, to Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the death of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having acknowledged the petitioners' right of self-defense, was required to acquit them rather than convict them, absent an explicit finding that the right of self-defense had been exceeded. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction under Section 304, Part I, inherently presupposed a finding that the petitioners had exceeded their right of private defense. The Court emphasized that the severity of the outcome—two deaths and multiple injuries—clearly demonstrated that the force employed by the petitioners went beyond what was necessary for self-protection. Consequently, the Court affirmed that no miscarriage of justice occurred, establishing that a conviction under Section 304, Part I, is legally consistent with a finding that the right of private defense was exceeded.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, inherently imply that the accused exceeded their right of private defense?
  • Is an explicit finding of exceeding the right of self-defense required in the judgment text if the conviction itself is for an offense that presupposes such excess?
  • Can an accused be convicted for culpable homicide when the court determines they were not the initial aggressors but acted in self-defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Zai Versus Shamsul Tabrez1988 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-17
  mortgage redemptionrestitution of mortgaged landcivil court jurisdictionlimitation periodnovation of contractspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a suit challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner under the N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act, 1950. The dispute arose over land mortgaged in 1870, with a subsequent mortgage deed executed in 1896 and a purported redemption in 1898. The respondents successfully obtained an order for the extinction of the mortgage under the 1950 Act. The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership, arguing the mortgage was no longer subsisting due to the expiration of the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the Commissioner's order was without jurisdiction. The High Court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 11 of the 1950 Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to try the suit and whether the redemption of the first mortgage and creation of a second mortgage constituted a novation of contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit challenging an order passed under the N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act 1950?
  • Whether the redemption of a first mortgage and the creation of a second mortgage constitutes a novation of contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Registrar of Trade Marks Versus Walter Rau Neusser 01 Und Fett Ag1988 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zameer Ahmad Versus Bashir Ahmad1988 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-30
  evacuee propertyPermanent Transfer Deedwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary remedybreach of trustSettlement Authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute between brothers regarding the transfer of evacuee property in Hyderabad. The appellants and the respondent jointly applied for the transfer of the property, and the respondent, acting on behalf of all, executed an agreement to ensure the transfer documents were in their joint names. However, the respondent breached this agreement by obtaining the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) exclusively in his own name. The appellants challenged this before the Settlement Authorities, who ordered the correction of the P.T.D. to include the appellants. The High Court, in a writ petition, set aside these orders, citing a lack of jurisdiction to correct the P.T.D. under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore an unfair and improper P.T.D. obtained through the respondent's breach of trust. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in aid of injustice, particularly when doing so perpetuates a fraud or unfair outcome, regardless of technical jurisdictional arguments regarding the Settlement Authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Should the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore a Permanent Transfer Deed obtained through a breach of trust?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to decline a writ petition if granting it would result in an injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Member, Board of Revbnue1988 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Versus Ali Sher1988 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Versus Hafiza Khanum1988 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi Versus Malik Oil Mills1988 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-02
  sales tax exemptionmanufacturing licencetax referencefinding of factbona fide purchaserburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil appeals against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court answering tax references in favour of the assessee. The respondent assessee claimed exemption under section 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, for sales made to parties holding manufacturing licences. The Sales-tax Officer disallowed the exemption on the assumption that the purchasing parties were bogus and non-existent, a view upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner based on surmises. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed these findings, holding that the assessee was entitled to rely on the valid manufacturing licences issued by the Department itself, and it was not the assessee's responsibility to investigate the genuineness of the licence-holders. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Department bore the onus to prove the assessee knew the purchasers were fictitious, and in the absence of cancellation of the licences by the Department, the assessee was fully justified in making sales on the strength of valid manufacturing licences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee is legally required to verify the genuineness of a manufacturing licence issued by the Department before making tax-exempt sales to the licence-holder?
  • Can a conclusion of fact by a tribunal based on surmises and conjectures be interfered with by the High Court under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Does the onus lie on the Revenue to prove that an assessee had knowledge that a purchaser holding a valid manufacturing licence was a fictitious entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Versus Wazir Ali1988 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Versus Allah Ditta Sethi1988 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Rashid1988 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mian Aftab a . Shaikh Versus Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal1988 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-31
  income tax assessmentIncome Tax Appellate TribunalSpecial Benchdraft judgmentlocus paenitentiaeconstitutional petitionbinding judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from leave to appeal granted to examine whether an income-tax assessment order was complete based on individual judgments recorded and signed by two out of three Tribunal members before the Chairman constituted a Special Bench to rehear the matter. The core legal question was whether signed draft opinions of individual members constitute a final, binding judgment of the Tribunal capable of communication, or merely a tentative step subject to change before formal delivery. The Supreme Court held that individual opinions and signed drafts remain tentative until a final decision of the whole bench is reached and formally crystallized, and judges or tribunal members retain a locus paenitentiae to alter their views until the judgment becomes operative. Consequently, the third member's failure to express a formal opinion left the case unconcluded, justifying the Chairman's constitution of a larger bench. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether signed draft opinions of individual members of a tribunal constitute a final and binding judgment?
  • Does a tribunal member retain the right to change their mind until a judgment is formally delivered or communicated?
  • Can a case be reheard by a newly constituted larger bench if the original bench failed to deliver a complete and operative decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Tufail Muhammad1988 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-12
  evacuee propertytemporary allotmentwrit jurisdictioncompensation poolleave to appealland confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over evacuee property in Faisalabad, which the Provincial Government had exchanged for State land, thereby removing it from the compensation pool. The respondents, claiming to be temporary allottees, initially filed a writ petition. During those proceedings, the Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the Government would allow the land to be confirmed in the respondents' favour if they were found entitled under the applicable scheme, with the matter referred to a Settlement Commissioner for determination. However, the Settlement Commissioner failed to conduct this inquiry. Subsequently, the respondents filed a second writ petition, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court ordered the confirmation of the land in their favour based on the previous High Court order. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal, arguing that the High Court erred by ordering confirmation without the prerequisite determination of the respondents' entitlement by the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court could not bypass the necessary factual inquiry into the respondents' status as claimants and temporary allottees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court order the confirmation of evacuee property in favour of claimants without a prior determination of their entitlement by the Settlement Commissioner?
  • Is a concession made by an Assistant Advocate-General regarding the transfer of land binding if the underlying factual conditions for entitlement remain unverified?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23
  criminal appealmurdercompromisesentence reductionmitigating circumstancedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court judgment maintaining his conviction and sentence of death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the parties compromised the matter out of court, and the petitioner provided proof that the complainant party had been amply compensated. The State counsel did not oppose the compromise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a compromise between the parties constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of the death sentence. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it in part, and reduced the petitioner's sentence from death to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the sentence of fine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and partly allow it?
  Read full judgment →
• Salah-Ud-Din Butt Versus Punjab Service Tribunal1988 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
• Director Food, Punjab, Lahore Versus Muhammad Yasin Bhatti1988 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  service tribunaldisciplinary penaltyrecovery of lossgovernment employeespecial leave to appealservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a government employee, had been subjected to disciplinary penalties, specifically the stoppage of increments and the recovery of monetary losses incurred by the government due to a theft of sugar. While the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld the penalty regarding the stoppage of increments, it set aside the order for the recovery of the loss. The Tribunal concluded, based on an analysis of the record, that the respondent was not responsible for the shortage or loss of sugar, as the theft was attributable solely to the chowkidars, who had already been punished by the competent authority. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the Tribunal and determined that the conclusion reached was neither perverse nor unjustified. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance requiring further consideration, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the petition, affirming that the respondent could not be held liable for the loss.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal's finding of fact regarding the liability of a government employee for financial loss be interfered with if it is not perverse?
  • Is a government employee liable for the recovery of losses caused by the theft of goods if the theft is proven to be the fault of other employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz Versus Khan Zaman1988 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  acquittalself-defenceinterested witnessesappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmedical evidenceF.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the petitioner's father. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's version of events—supported by interested eye-witnesses—in favor of the defence's plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's eye-witnesses were rightly disbelieved due to their interested and hostile nature. The Court held that where two conflicting versions of an occurrence exist, the version supported by medical evidence, the presence of injuries on the accused, and an earlier-in-time F.I.R. lodged by the accused is to be preferred. The principle laid down is that when prosecution evidence is unreliable and the defence version is corroborated by independent medical and documentary evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the appellate court's acquittal will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court prefer a defence version of an occurrence over the prosecution version if the prosecution witnesses are found to be interested and hostile?
  • Does the presence of a fire-arm injury on an accused person support a plea of self-defence in a murder case?
  • Is an F.I.R. lodged by an accused person prior to the prosecution's F.I.R. a relevant factor in determining the credibility of the defence version?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Muhammad Jan1988 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealsentence reductionmurderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentconjectureappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23rd April, 1984, whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was maintained, but his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the respondent murdered the deceased with a chhuri following an earlier altercation over a cloth purchase transaction. The High Court reduced the sentence based on the conjecture that the deceased must have provoked the respondent during the encounter. The core legal question is whether the High Court's reasoning and conjecture for awarding a lesser penalty are sustainable based on the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine the sustainability of the reasons given by the High Court for the commutation of the death sentence. The principle laid down is that sentence reduction cannot be based on mere conjectures unsupported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the reason given by the High Court for awarding a lesser penalty to the respondent is sustainable in the light of the evidence on the record?
  • Can a sentence of death be reduced to imprisonment for life based on a conjecture of sudden provocation without supporting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Versus Inayat Hussain1988 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11
  civil revisiondeclaratory suitinheritance mutationconcurrent findings of factpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' declaratory suit. The petitioners challenged an inheritance mutation in favour of the respondent, claiming to be the rightful heirs of the last male holder, whereas the respondent was recognized as the son of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly appraised the evidence regarding the paternity and inheritance rights of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no material irregularity or illegality, and no substantial question of law was raised, the petition lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of any material irregularity, illegality, or question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where no material irregularity or illegality is pointed out?
  • Can a civil revision be maintained against concurrent judgments of lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan Versus Maqsood Javaid1988 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  petition for special leave to appealmurderplea of alibiacquittaleye-witness testimonyinjured witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of death imposed upon the respondent for a murder committed during a student scuffle at a hostel in Lahore. The prosecution case alleged that the respondent, along with others, arrived in a vehicle and attacked the deceased and an injured witness following a previous dispute over a banned student meeting. The trial court convicted the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but the High Court acquitted him, accepting his plea of alibi. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in rejecting the testimony of eye-witnesses, including an injured witness, and that the alibi was unsupported by primary written records. The Supreme Court examined the contentions, found them worthy of consideration, and granted leave to appeal, ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest against the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in accepting the plea of alibi without the production of available written records of the wrestling competition?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness should be discarded when corroborated by other hostel residents?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an acquittal in a murder case based on the re-appreciation of eye-witness evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Versus Arshad Javaid1988 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09
  petition for leave to appealalteration of convictionsudden fightappraisal of evidencemurderculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court altering the conviction and sentence of the respondent from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Asif. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence by concluding that the incident was a sudden fight arising from a children's dispute rather than a premeditated murder. The Supreme Court held that where the appraisal of evidence by the High Court leads to a plausible conclusion of a sudden fight without premeditation, a mere alternative view of the evidence does not constitute a sufficient ground for interference by the apex court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent factual findings based on a plausible view of the evidence will not be disturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appraisal of evidence when an alternative view is possible?
  • Does carrying a weapon like a Chhuri necessarily establish premeditation in a murder case arising from a sudden dispute?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code upon finding that a sudden fight ensued over a children's quarrel?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16
  post-arrest bailcriminal lawleave to appealfatal injuryjudicial discretionbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which had rejected the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 307, and 324, read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was one of the individuals responsible for inflicting the fatal blow upon the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its judicial discretion by denying bail to the petitioner given the specific allegations of a fatal injury attributed to him. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or violation of established legal principles in the High Court's order refusing bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts in bail matters absent a clear violation of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court violate legal principles by rejecting a bail application where the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a fatal blow?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order refusing bail if no violation of law is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseeban Versus Maqbool Ahmad1988 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11
  gifthibadelivery of possessionminor doneeregistered deedIslamic law of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the validity of a gift made by a grandfather to his minor grandson, specifically whether the gift remained inchoate due to the alleged non-delivery of possession. The donor had executed a registered deed explicitly stating that possession had been delivered. The respondent, a minor, was residing with the donor, who was also providing for his maintenance, while the respondent's father held interests adverse to the minor. The High Court concluded that formal delivery of possession was not required in these circumstances, as the donor effectively held the property on behalf of the minor donee after the execution of the deed. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no reason to disagree with the High Court's reasoning regarding the completion of the gift under the specific facts of the case. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that in cases involving a grandfather and a minor grandson living together, the donor's continued possession can be construed as possession on behalf of the donee.

  Questions settled

  • Is formal delivery of possession necessary for a gift to a minor grandson when the donor is the grandfather and the minor resides with him?
  • Can a donor's possession be construed as possession on behalf of a minor donee after the execution of a registered gift deed?
  • Does a recital in a registered gift deed regarding the delivery of possession carry legal weight in determining the completion of a gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Versus Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab1988 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Iqbal Versus Muhammad Amin1988 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
• Manzooran Versus Muhammad Ali1988 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09
  leave to appealalteration of convictionculpable homicidemedical evidencesentence reductionsafe administration of criminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code was altered to Section 304 Part II, and their sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the respondents caused injuries to the deceased on her legs with weapons like Pawa and Sota, resulting in her death due to shock and haemorrhage. The High Court based its alteration of conviction on a statement made by the medical officer in cross-examination that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and that the injuries were on non-vital parts. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly evaluated the medical evidence and arrived at a correct conclusion in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code based solely on a stray sentence in the medical officer's cross-examination?
  • Did the High Court properly evaluate the medical evidence in accordance with the well-established principles of the safe administration of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Versus Allah Bakhsh1988 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  criminal petitionmurderacquittalocular testimonymedical evidencemistaken identityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent, who was previously convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, was acquitted. The core legal question involves the appreciation of ocular testimony, medical evidence, motive, and alleged mistaken identity in a night-time murder occurrence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly rejected the ocular testimony due to conflicts with the medical evidence, material improvements at the trial stage, and the implausibility of the alleged mistaken identity when the actual target of the motive was present at the scene. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a murder conviction when ocular testimony is in conflict with medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a mistaken identity where the primary target of the alleged motive was present at the scene unharmed?
  • Does a material improvement made by eye-witnesses at the trial stage warrant the rejection of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadanwar Versus State1988 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Versus State1988 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-04
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationabductionHudood Ordinancevalidity of divorce
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail previously granted to the appellants, Muhammad Hayat and Mst. Sultana, who were accused under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for alleged abduction. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of bail was justified and whether the validity of the divorce and subsequent marriage could be determined at the bail stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that obtaining affidavits from witnesses while on bail does not prima facie constitute tampering of the record unless coercion is alleged, and the question of whether the female appellant was validly divorced by her former husband falls to be determined by a Family Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and admitted the appellants to bail, establishing the principle that disputed questions of marital status and family law must be adjudicated by the competent Family Court rather than prejudged at the bail stage in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does obtaining affidavits from prosecution witnesses while on bail constitute tampering with the record without allegations of coercion?
  • Can the question of whether a valid divorce has taken place be conclusively determined at the bail stage in criminal proceedings?
  • Whether accused persons charged under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 are entitled to post-arrest bail when the marriage and divorce status is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Versus Amir1988 SCMR 470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-15
  criminal petitionleave to appealconvictionsentence reductionlife imprisonmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-petitions seeking special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 20th March, 1984, which upheld the conviction of two accused persons under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment for one and reducing the death sentence of the other to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction and the quantum of sentence awarded to the convicts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the conviction of both accused was well-founded and the sentences imposed, including the lesser sentence, were legally sustainable. The Court established that where a lesser sentence imposed by the High Court is a lawful exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court will not interfere with it on a petition for enhancement, and accordingly dismissed both the complainant's petition for enhancement and the convicts' petition against conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a lesser sentence of life imprisonment passed by the High Court when it is a legal sentence?
  • Are the convictions under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when supported by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Haneef-Ur-Rahman Versus Muhammad Jalal-Ud-Din1988 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iftikhar Zaman Versus Maqsooda Begum1988 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12
  maintenance allowancefamily courtconcurrent findingsquestion of factwrit jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge regarding maintenance allowance. The petitioner, the husband and father, contested the maintenance awards granted to his wife and minor daughter, arguing that the lower courts misread the record concerning his financial status and that the quantum of maintenance was improperly fixed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the arguments and determined that the issues raised by the petitioner were exclusively questions of fact that had already been adequately addressed by the High Court. The Court held that in the absence of any substantial question of law, it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to re-examine factual determinations made by lower courts in maintenance disputes where no legal error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding maintenance allowance where no question of law is involved?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained when the underlying arguments relate solely to the appreciation of evidence and factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Versus State1988 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →
• Wallan Bibi Versus Saleem1988 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  leave to appealconviction modificationculpable homicidemurdercommon intentionmedical evidencenon-bailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Mst. Wallan Bibi, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the conviction of the respondents, Saleem and Shamas, from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting two other co-accused. The trial court had originally convicted all four respondents under Section 302/34, sentencing one to death and the others to life imprisonment for the murder of the petitioner's husband, which involved both blunt weapon injuries and throttling. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in reducing the conviction given the medical evidence of fatal injuries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding the respondents Saleem and Shamas to determine whether the facts of the case warranted a conviction under Section 302/34 rather than the lesser offence of Section 304, Part II. The Court ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants for the respondents to ensure their presence for the appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in converting a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the presence of both blunt weapon injuries and throttling justify a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashida Begum Versus Hamayun Mirza1988 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  petition for leave to appealmurdersudden fightreduction of sentenceappreciation of evidenceself-defenceinjuries on accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the respondent's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, and reduced his sentence of life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Idrees. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by treating the incident as a sudden fight and accepting the defence version regarding the nature of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of a sudden fight was correct, noting that the respondent sustained eight injuries, including three incised wounds, while the deceased had only one fatal injury, thus justifying the reduction in conviction and sentence. Consequently, the Court laid down that where mutual injuries on the accused support the existence of a sudden fight, appellate interference with the High Court's assessment of facts is unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 302 to section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code based on the existence of a sudden fight?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries on the person of the accused support the plea of a sudden fight in a murder case?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment reducing a sentence of life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Versus Muhammad Sharif1988 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
• Director of Education Versus Muhammad Yusuf Shami1988 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunalannual confidential reportadverse remarksbiasleave to appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Director of Education filed petitions for special leave to appeal against orders dated 28th October 1986 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which expunged adverse remarks recorded in the annual confidential reports of the respondent on the ground of bias. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in relying upon the comments of the Director of Education, Lahore Region, rather than the Director Education, Rawalpindi Division. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner lacked merit as the Education Department had not disowned the comments of the Lahore Directorate before the Tribunal, and further observed that no substantial question of law of public importance arose in the matter. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions, affirming the Tribunal's orders expunging the biased adverse remarks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can rely on comments furnished by a departmental authority other than the immediate reporting officer?
  • Does an expungement of adverse remarks on the ground of bias raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • When will the Supreme Court refuse leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab Versus Muhammad Mahmood, Advocate1988 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-13
  interlocutory orderleave to appealjudicial privilegeadministrative correspondenceinstitutional dignityproduction of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of Punjab filed a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the Lahore High Court, which directed the Advocate-General to produce a letter of recommendation regarding the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court should compel the production of confidential correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive of the Province, and whether the Advocate-General was entitled to a further opportunity to argue against such production to protect the institution's dignity. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order, noting that the Government did not claim privilege over the document. However, acknowledging the Advocate-General's concern regarding the precedent of disclosing such sensitive administrative correspondence, the Court disposed of the petition with the observation that the Advocate-General should be granted a further opportunity to present his arguments before the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court itself is best positioned to balance the necessity of evidence production against the need to maintain the prestige and dignity of the judicial institution.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court regarding the production of documents?
  • Does the production of administrative correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive of a Province violate the dignity of the High Court?
  • Is the Advocate-General entitled to a further opportunity to argue against an order requiring the production of official correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Versus Karam Elahi Zia1988 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  leave to appealcircumstantial evidencemurderacquittalappetate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and acquitted him. The core legal question involves determining whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including the falsity of the respondent's explanation, his absence from the crime scene, physical evidence relating to footprints and car brakes, and the implausibility of the dacoity plea—was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding material circumstances overlooked by the High Court required detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal in both petitions and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the respondent. The key principle laid down is that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, appellate review must carefully assess all material links and explanations offered by the accused to determine guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the acquittal of an accused by the High Court?
  • Does the failure of dacoits to remove valuables from the scene negate the plea of innocence based on a dacoity attack?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Zafar1988 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  murderculpable homicideappreciation of evidenceleave to appealcriminal liabilitycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified the convictions of the respondents in a murder case. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, who succumbed to injuries five days after an assault. The High Court, however, acquitted them of the murder charge, reasoning that the assailants did not intend to kill the deceased outright, despite inflicting numerous injuries, and instead convicted them under lesser sections (323, 324, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the medical evidence, specifically the presence of fifteen injuries including head wounds, and the expert testimony stating the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, brought the case within the ambit of Section 300, clause 'thirdly', of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly applied established principles regarding the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases involving severe, fatal beatings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of multiple injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature bring a case within the scope of Section 300, clause 'thirdly', of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a conviction from murder to a lesser offence when medical evidence indicates the injuries sustained were fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Naseem Versus Province of Punjab1988 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19
  leave to appealdeclaratory suitdivorceTalaq noticemaintenancecivil court jurisdictionfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with judgments affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's declaratory suit. The core legal question involves the validity and effectiveness of a divorce (Talaq) given by the petitioner, the procedural requirements of sending notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council, whether failure to appear before the Arbitration Council constitutes a revocation of Talaq, and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Family Courts in such matters. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts and the alleged revocation of Talaq upon non-appearance before the Chairman require detailed examination. The key principle noted is that substantial legal questions concerning family law determinations and statutory notices of divorce warrant a full hearing by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Are Civil Courts competent to entertain a suit seeking to declare orders passed regarding maintenance and Talaq as illegal and without jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure of a husband to appear before the Chairman of the Arbitration Council amount to a revocation of the notice of Talaq?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to properly serve a notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad Versus Muhammad Anwar1988 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  leave to appealmurderous assaultocular testimonycredibility of witnessesdelay in FIRacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment that acquitted the respondent, Muhammad Anwar, of charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been convicted by a Judicial Magistrate for a murderous assault on the petitioner, Noor Ahmad. The High Court had overturned this conviction, citing the witnesses' unreliability due to enmity, the status of an independent witness as a 'chance witness,' contradictions in testimony, lack of corroboration by medical evidence, and an unexplained delay in filing the First Information Report. The petitioner argues that the occurrence happened in daylight, the accused was identified, and the delay in the FIR was justified because the police initially refused to register the case. The Supreme Court finds that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the credibility of the ocular testimony and the explanation for the delay in the FIR warrant further examination. Consequently, the Court grants leave to appeal and issues bailable warrants for the respondent's arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of the police to register a case provide a satisfactory explanation for a delay in lodging the First Information Report?
  • Are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant the rejection of their evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the High Court finds that ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and the witnesses are biased due to enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Wajid Nawaz Khan Versus Nasir Khalil,1988 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  leave to appealinterim orderselection tribunalswrit jurisdictionexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, during the pendency of writ petitions arising from decisions of Election Tribunals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel regarding the interim nature of the High Court's orders. Upon review, the Court determined that no sufficient grounds existed to warrant its interference at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal. However, in the interest of justice and the expeditious resolution of the underlying election disputes, the Supreme Court issued a directive requesting the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petitions during the week commencing from 16-1-1988. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint regarding interim orders in ongoing proceedings while emphasizing the necessity for timely adjudication in election-related matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court during the pendency of writ petitions?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue directives to the High Court regarding the timeline for disposing of pending petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Versus Bilqees Begum1988 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Versus Saira Bibi1988 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  pre-emption decreeleave to appealretrospective operationcivil revisionSaid Kamal Shah caseafterthought objectionvendee
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-7-1986, which had dismissed the petitioners/vendees' civil revision arising out of a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent. The petitioners raised two principal grounds: first, that although the pre-emption decree was passed prior to 31-7-1986, it was rendered void by the retrospective effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench decision in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah; and second, that the decree was invalid because there was no assertion or proof on the record establishing that the pre-emptor and vendor were Muslims. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the retrospective operation argument was unavailable and already rejected in precedent, including Muhammad Masood Khan Bhatti v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The Court further ruled that the objection concerning religious faith was an afterthought that had not been raised at the proper stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench in Said Kamal Shah's case has retrospective operation to annul pre-emption decrees passed prior to 31-7-1986?
  • Can an objection regarding the religious faith of a pre-emptor or vendor be entertained if it was not raised at the proper stage during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis Versus Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue1988 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  Lambardar appointmentwrit jurisdictionleave to appealland revenuehereditary claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The original Lambardar was removed for alienating his entire holding, leading to a contest for the vacancy between the petitioner and the son of the removed Lambardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner, whose appointment was initially reversed by the Commissioner, subsequently restored by the Board of Revenue, and finally set aside by the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in interfering with a Lambardari dispute and misconstrued rule 19(2) of the relevant rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the questions raised regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction in Lambardari matters and the interpretation of the applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction with an appointment order regarding a Lambardar?
  • How is rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 to be interpreted regarding the appointment of a new Lambardar in place of a removed landless Lambardar?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris Versus Muhammad Feroz Bangash1988 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman Versus State1988 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-07
  criminal appealdeath sentencevicarious liabilitysentencing paritymurderPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Saifur Rehman, for the murder of the deceased and murderous assault on a prosecution witness. The core legal question concerned the proportionality of the death sentence, given that the trial court had attributed fatal injuries to multiple participants, yet only the appellant received the death penalty, while co-accused received life imprisonment. The Supreme Court observed that the role attributed to the convicted accused was similar and that the fatal injuries were not caused by the appellant alone. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant’s liability was equivalent to that of his co-accused. The Court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment, enhanced the fine payable as compensation to the heirs, and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing must maintain parity among co-accused when the fatal injuries are not exclusively attributable to a single individual.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require parity in sentencing among co-accused when fatal injuries are distributed?
  • Can a death sentence be maintained when the fatal injuries are not exclusively attributable to the appellant?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict whose death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha1988 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-05
  limitationcondonation of delaysufficient causeordinary diligencetime-barred petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seven days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay, contending that a misreading of the date on the certified copy of the judgment—specifically misinterpreting '28-3-1978' as '18-3-1978'—caused the filing error. The Court examined the endorsement of the Copying Department and found that the figure '2' was distinct from the figure '1' used elsewhere in the document. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner should have been aware of the actual date they submitted their own application for copies. The Court held that the petitioner failed to exercise ordinary diligence in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the Court determined that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was established. The plea for condonation was refused, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as time-barred, establishing the principle that a party's failure to exercise ordinary diligence regarding their own procedural timelines does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does a misreading of a date on a certified copy by a party constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Is a party's failure to know the date of their own application for copies considered a lack of ordinary diligence?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if it is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation without sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehmas Khan Versus Zohra Arshad1988 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ziaul Haq Versus Government of Punjab1988 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  allotment of landStatement of Conditionsresumption of landstatutory ceilingnatural justiceaudi alteram partemillegalityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit wherein the petitioners partially succeeded in protecting an allotment of land granted to their father up to 121 acres, while the remaining area allotted in excess was resumed by the government. The core legal questions pertained to whether an allotment made by a Revenue Minister in excess of the statutory ceiling under the Statement of Conditions 1949 could be protected on grounds of passage of time, investment made, or lack of prior notice. The Supreme Court held that statutory functionaries are bound to implement relevant schemes rather than ignore or subvert them; thus, an illegal allotment exceeding the prescribed statutory limit cannot be legally validated by the passage of time or ignorance of law. Furthermore, the court held that any requirement of natural justice regarding a prior hearing was fully satisfied by the extensive proceedings and hearings conducted before the civil courts. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allotment of land made by a Minister in excess of statutory limits prescribed under a Statement of Conditions be legally protected or cured by the passage of time?
  • Does ignorance of law or investment made on land validate an illegal allotment made in defiance of statutory rules?
  • Is the requirement of natural justice satisfied if a party, who was not granted a hearing prior to the resumption of land, receives a full hearing before civil courts of plenary jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Shah Versus Mehr Shah1988 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  special leave to appealmurderocular testimonyrecovery evidenceacquittalinvestigating officer testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents based on ocular testimony and the recovery of firearms. On appeal, the High Court set aside these convictions, finding the prosecution witnesses hostile and the recovery evidence unreliable due to the alleged bias of the public witness. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in rejecting the recovery evidence, arguing that the testimony of the investigating officer, who recovered the weapons, should not have been discarded in the absence of evidence of dishonesty or fabrication. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the reliability of the investigating officer's testimony required further examination, granted leave to appeal and issued warrants for the arrest of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an investigating officer regarding the recovery of incriminating evidence be discarded solely because the public witness to the recovery is considered unreliable?
  • Does the absence of evidence showing dishonesty or motive to fabricate on the part of an investigating officer validate their testimony regarding recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1988 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• Board of Revenue Versus Bashir Ahmad Khan1988 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-03
  land acquisitionreview petitionvalidating statutemarginal systemslab systemretrospective operationThal Development Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns review petitions filed by the Board of Revenue against a previous Supreme Court judgment regarding land acquisition schemes under the Thal Development Act. The core legal question was whether the Thal Development (Amendment) Ordinance 1971 effectively validated the 'marginal system' of land return, which had been previously invalidated by the Thal Development (Amendment) Act 1955 in favor of a 'slab system'. The Court held that the 1971 Ordinance was enacted specifically to provide legal protection and validity to acquisitions and the marginal system of return applied before July 20, 1955, notwithstanding any prior contrary judgments or provisions in the 1955 Amendment Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petitions, correcting its previous judgment to reflect that the marginal system, rather than the slab system, governed the acquisitions made during the specified period. The key principle laid down is that a validating statute, by its nature, can override prior inconsistent provisions and judicial orders to provide retrospective legal validity to actions, rights, and obligations that were previously irregular or invalidated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Thal Development (Amendment) Ordinance 1971 validate the marginal system of land return for acquisitions made prior to July 20, 1955?
  • Can a validating statute override prior judicial orders and inconsistent provisions of earlier legislation?
  • Do Press Notes regarding land acquisition schemes possess statutory force?
  Read full judgment →
• Boote Shah Versus Azmat Shah1988 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  leave to appealculpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden fightheat of passionself-defencereduction of sentencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Boote Shah against a judgment of the High Court, which had altered the conviction of the respondent Azmat Shah from section 302 to section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced his sentence of imprisonment for life to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The respondent was originally tried by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Khadim Hussain, convicted under section 302, and sentenced as a juvenile to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that the respondent stabbed the deceased following a dispute over the distribution of 'Niaz' near a local shrine. The High Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, holding that the occurrence was unpremeditated and the result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The core legal question is whether Exception 4 to Section 300 was properly attracted to the facts of the case, given the absence of evidence showing a sudden fight between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the inapplicable nature of Exception 4 required examination, granted leave to appeal, and issued bailable warrants of arrest against the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when there is no evidence of a sudden fight between the parties?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 304 without establishing the applicability of a recognized exception?
  • Whether the plea of self-defence is available to an accused who initiates an assault following a minor verbal dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  dismissal in limineregular first appealinterim staybank guaranteeexecution of decreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by a Judge-in-Chamber, which dismissed a regular first appeal in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the summary dismissal of a regular first appeal by a Judge-in-Chamber is legally permissible, particularly in light of established precedent regarding the procedural requirements for disposing of such appeals. The petitioner contended that such dismissal violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Abid Hussain v. Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum and another (PLD 1973 SC 1). The Court, upon considering the contention, issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be converted into an appeal and allowed. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief, ordering a stay of the execution of the decree, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for half the decretal amount and personal security for the remainder to the satisfaction of the Executing Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the dismissal in limine of a regular first appeal by a Judge-in-Chamber legally valid?
  • Under what conditions may the execution of a decree be stayed pending the disposal of a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Bashir Versus Mubina Begum1988 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan Versus Telephones and Telegraph Department Government of Pakistan1988 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah Khan Brohi Versus Federal Ministry of Pakistan Railways at Islamabad1988 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-01
  service tribunallimitation perioddepartmental appealpay fixationdisciplinary penaltycondonation of delaycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as incompetent and barred by time. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Pakistan Railways Police, challenged a departmental letter regarding pay fixation. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an administrative letter communicating the implementation of a prior disciplinary penalty—and an appeal filed without exhausting the statutory departmental appeal against the actual penalty order—was maintainable before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal against the consequential pay-fixation letter was incompetent and that any challenge to the substantive penalty order dated 14-6-1983 was hopelessly time-barred. The Court laid down the principle that a civil servant aggrieved by a disciplinary penalty must challenge the operative penalty order directly through a departmental appeal before approaching the Service Tribunal, and limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge of the actual penalty order rather than subsequent clarifiably consequential communications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal against an administrative letter communicating a pay adjustment based on an earlier disciplinary order is maintainable as an appeal against the penalty itself?
  • Does limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a penalty order commence from the date of the consequential pay fixation communication when the employee had knowledge of the proceedings?
  • Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal barred if filed without first exhausting the departmental appeal against the operative penalty order pursuant to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mir Khan Versus Muhammad Usman1988 SCMR 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  leave to appealmurder caseforensic evidencecrime emptieseyewitness testimonyacquittalmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a murder case where the Lahore High Court acquitted seven respondents, setting aside their convictions and sentences previously awarded by the trial court. The occurrence involved three deaths in December 1973, with a prompt F.I.R. lodged. The prosecution's case faced challenges regarding the omission of certain names in the F.I.R. and the reliability of eyewitness testimony given the visibility conditions and the promptness of the report. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court misread evidence, particularly regarding the independence of eyewitnesses and the impact of the acquittal of other co-accused on the remaining respondents. The Court held that while the acquittal of co-accused generally weakens the prosecution's case, leave to appeal should be granted specifically against those respondents whose recovered weapons matched the crime empties found at the scene. Conversely, leave to appeal was refused regarding the remaining respondents. The judgment reaffirms the principle that forensic evidence, such as the matching of recovered weapons with crime empties, serves as a critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to appeal in criminal matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically necessitate the acquittal of all other co-accused in a criminal case?
  • Is the matching of recovered weapons with crime empties a sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  • Can an appellate court's misreading of an eyewitness's relationship to the deceased justify a review of the acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus Muhammad Akram1988 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09Read full judgment →
• Tayyaba Versus Fazal Elahi1988 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  evictionlandlord and tenantreconstructionmisreading of recordleave to appealconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored an eviction order granted by a Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had sought eviction of the petitioners, who were tenants, on the ground that the premises were required for reconstruction. While the Rent Controller initially allowed the eviction, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding that the proposed reconstruction could proceed without vacating the premises. The High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate order, finding that the Additional District Judge had misread the record regarding the feasibility of the construction. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the existing and proposed construction plans and concurred with the High Court's finding that the proposed work could not be executed while the house remained occupied. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified the misreading of the record and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby affirming the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord obtain an eviction order on the ground of reconstruction if the proposed work requires the premises to be vacated?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to set aside an appellate order if it finds a misreading of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Piran Ditta Alias Peero Versus State1988 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  clerical errorjudgment correctioncompensationminor victimmaintenancecompromiseinterest-bearing account
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-judgment application for the correction of a clerical error and directions regarding the management of compensation funds in a criminal case. Following a conviction for murder and attempted murder, the Supreme Court had previously reduced the death sentence of the accused to life imprisonment based on a compromise, which included a financial undertaking by a third party, Ghulam Hussain, to pay monthly maintenance to the victim's daughter, Mst. Shamim Akhtar. The core legal questions were whether a clerical error in the victim's name in the court's judgment could be rectified and how to ensure the security of the compensation funds for the minor victim, who suffers from a disability. The Court held that the clerical error regarding the victim's name, erroneously recorded as Mst. Nasim Fatima, should be corrected to Mst. Shamim Akhtar. Furthermore, to protect the victim's interests, the Court directed the State Bank of Pakistan to deposit the compensation funds into an interest-bearing account, payable only upon the victim's marriage or upon her attaining the age of eighteen years, whichever occurs later.

  Questions settled

  • Can a clerical error in the name of a party or victim in a judgment be corrected by the court?
  • What measures can the court order to ensure compensation funds for a minor victim with disabilities are preserved?
  • Under what conditions should compensation funds held by an employer be released to a minor victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan Versus Mardan Industries Ltd.1988 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-02-22
  excise dutyexemptionvested righttribal areassubsequent notificationretrospective operationprivilegia favourabilia
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave addresses whether an exemption from excise duty granted by the Central Government for a period of four years could be regulated by a subsequent notification before the expiry of that period. Mardan Industries Limited established a cigarette manufacturing undertaking in the Tribal Areas, relying on an initial exemption notification issued under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Subsequently, the Central Government issued a notification adding a proviso restricting the exemption for goods bearing brand names or trademarks of similar goods marketed in settled areas of Pakistan. The High Court had ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that they had acquired a vested right. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the exemption was a privilegia favourabilia which the Government could regulate by subsequent notification, and that section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, empowered the Government to issue such regulatory notifications without violating any vested rights, provided there was no retrospective operation affecting past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the operation of an exemption from excise duty granted by the Central Government can be regulated by a subsequent notification before the expiry of the exemption period?
  • Does an industrial undertaking acquire a vested right to an excise duty exemption that prevents the Government from regulating or restricting the exemption through a subsequent notification?
  • Whether a notification restricting tax exemptions for goods bearing brand names of similar goods marketed in other areas constitutes an impermissible retrospective operation destroying vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddiqa Begum Versus Claims Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore1988 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munshi Versus Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1988 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Samiullah Versus Hameed Kausar1988 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantconcurrent findings of factleave to appealeviction application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the ejectment order passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The core legal questions involved the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the eviction application suffered from a legal defect for failing to implead other heirs of the petitioner's deceased father. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings regarding the existence of tenancy, based on the appreciation of evidence, warranted no interference, and that the non-joinder of other heirs did not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of evidence showing their occupation or interest in the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court, and that non-impleadment of non-occupying heirs is not a fatal defect in ejectment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Does an eviction application suffer from a fatal legal defect if other heirs of a deceased tenant, who are not in occupation of the property, are not impleaded?
  Read full judgment →