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.

• Shahid Nawaz Khan Versus Assistant Commissioner/ Registration Officer1988 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Versus Ghulam Rasul1988 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  ejectmentpersonal needconstitutional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencerent controllandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an appellate order and restore an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the Additional District Judge's findings regarding the landlord's claim of personal need for the rented premises. The Rent Controller had initially ordered the tenant's ejectment based on the landlord's requirement of the shop for his son's law office. The Additional District Judge had reversed this, citing the son's lack of familiarity with the shop's interior and suspecting a motive to increase rent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded the Additional District Judge had misread the record and engaged in conjecture. The Court affirmed that the landlord's son was a practicing lawyer without office space, and the lower appellate court's reasoning was flawed. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision to restore the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction interfere with an appellate order based on misreading of evidence?
  • Does a finding of personal need for rented premises become vitiated if the appellate court relies on conjectural motives regarding rent increases?
  • Is an appellate court's conclusion regarding the bona fide nature of a landlord's personal need subject to correction if it misinterprets the witness's testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubeda Begum Versus Government of Sind1988 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Sughra Bibi Alias Mehran Bibi Versus Asghar Khan1988 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-28
  constitutional jurisdictionleave to appealtransfer of propertysettlement authoritiespermanent transfer deednatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 3rd April, 1986. The petitioner had initially applied for the transfer of an open plot on a D.P. Form, and was issued an appendix for a specific area of 262 sq. yds. Subsequently, a revised appendix and permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.) were issued for a substantially reduced area without notice to the petitioner, while the remaining portion was auctioned. The petitioner challenged the reduction before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, but the High Court dismissed the petition holding that factual controversies could not be examined and that the petitioner failed to avail alternate remedies. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that transfer documents and entitlements initially issued could not be lawfully modified behind the allottee's back without association and notice. The Court concluded that the legality of the subsequent reduction required detailed examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities are competent to modify a previously issued transfer order and reduce an allottee's entitlement without providing notice and an opportunity of hearing?
  • Can questions regarding the factual correctness of a settlement inspector's report and the modification of allotment documents be examined within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the issuance of a revised appendix and permanent transfer deed behind the back of an allottee warrant interference by the Supreme Court through leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezan Coal Company Versus Abdul Qayyum1988 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• Begum Laila Sarfaraz Versus Noor Muhammad1988 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Versus Muhammad Ali1988 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Miratul Ain Versus Province of the Punjab1988 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed & Co. Versus Javed Oil Industries1988 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to defendrecovery suitbank guaranteejudicial discretionsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents filed three suits against the petitioner firm for the recovery of Rs.75,000 before the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, who granted leave to appear and defend the suits on the condition that the firm furnish a bank guarantee equal to the claimed amount within one month. The petitioner firm challenged this condition through a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the imposition of a bank guarantee as a condition for granting leave to defend a recovery suit involved any illegality or improper exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Additional District Judge contained no illegality and that no ground existed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower forums. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that courts possess the discretion to impose reasonable conditions for granting leave to defend in summary recovery matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for granting leave to defend a recovery suit?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent discretion exercised by lower courts regarding conditions for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Additional Commissioner (Revenue)1988 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
• Hamid Javed Alias Hamidi Versus State1988 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-28
  criminal petition for leave to appealdying statementfirearm injuriesmurdermurderous assaultcommutation of sentencedelay in recording statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for murder and murderous assault. The incident occurred during a dispute between rival supporters in a horse race, resulting in firearm injuries to the deceased and an injured eye-witness. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 302 and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death and imprisonment respectively, while acquitting or altering sentences for co-accused. On appeal, the High Court maintained the petitioner's conviction under both sections but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the imprisonment for attempt to murder. The Supreme Court evaluated contentions regarding the reliability of the dying statement and the delay in recording eye-witness statements. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the dying statement and eye-witness testimony, supported by medical evidence of the victim's consciousness, were unexceptionable, and that mere delay by the investigating agency in recording statements of named eye-witnesses does not render them unreliable. The petition was dismissed both on merits and as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying statement can be relied upon when the deceased suffered a firearm injury to the chest?
  • Does a delay by the investigating agency in recording the statements of eye-witnesses named in the FIR render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Versus Dost Muhammad1988 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19
  right of private defenceacquittalleave to appealappreciation of evidenceSection 342 statementmurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Dost Muhammad, of murder charges. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in extending the right of private defence to the respondent, despite the respondent not explicitly pleading self-defence in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was sound, noting that even if a formal plea of self-defence is not explicitly articulated in the accused's statement, the court may still consider the right of private defence if it can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of the case. The Court found no misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice in the High Court’s assessment that both parties had suppressed the full truth. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, affirming that where the circumstances support the inference of self-defence, the benefit cannot be denied to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the right of private defence be extended to an accused even if not explicitly pleaded in their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an appellate court justified in acquitting an accused if the circumstances reasonably suggest a right of private defence, despite the accused's failure to formally assert it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1988 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• Piran Ditta Versus Qadir Bux1988 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  special leave to appealmurderacquittalocular testimonymotiverecovery evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitted them of the murder of Shah Muhammad. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked and killed the deceased due to a motive stemming from his marriage to a widow whose hand had been rejected by one of the respondents. The trial court had convicted the respondents based on ocular testimony and weapon recoveries. However, the High Court acquitted them after finding that the motive was unestablished, the eye-witnesses lacked satisfactory explanation for their presence, the recovery evidence was doubtful, and the investigating officer was dishonest. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranting acquittal suffered from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided substantial reasons for rejecting the ocular and recovery evidence and for finding the motive unproved. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that no case for granting leave was made out and dismissed the petitions, affirming the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a murder conviction when ocular testimony and motive were found to be doubtful?
  • Does the rejection of recovery evidence and the finding of a dishonest investigation provide sufficient grounds to maintain an acquittal?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Versus Ghulam Shabbir1988 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalocular testimonyprompt FIRapprehension of accusedmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of murder under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing their conviction by the trial court. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from three witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the respondents attack the deceased with a kassi, overpowered them at the spot, and produced them at the police station. The High Court acquitted the respondents, finding the motive weak due to the passage of time since the marriage in question, and doubting the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene at 1:30 A.M. The petitioner contended that the prompt lodging of the First Information Report and the physical apprehension of the armed assailants at the spot strongly corroborated the ocular testimony. Finding that these contentions required deeper examination, the Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants of arrest against the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prompt lodging of a First Information Report and the physical apprehension of accused persons at the crime scene can sufficiently corroborate ocular testimony?
  • Can an acquittal be sustained if the High Court rejects ocular evidence solely on the ground that the witnesses' presence at the scene at night was not satisfactorily explained?
  • Does the passage of several years since an event that allegedly caused resentment automatically negate the existence of a motive for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  bailinvestigating agency reportmurdercriminal trialjudicial discretionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners were accused of murder and attempted murder, with the fatal injury specifically attributed to one petitioner. During the investigation, the police initially found the petitioners innocent and recommended case cancellation; however, the Illaqa Magistrate disagreed, concluding that evidence existed to warrant a trial, and directed the submission of a challan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in denying bail despite the investigating agency's opinion of innocence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court provided cogent reasons for disregarding the police's opinion on the petitioners' involvement. The Court held that the trial court must remain uninfluenced by the bail proceedings and the investigating agency's initial findings, determining the guilt or innocence of the accused solely based on the evidence presented during the trial. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate bound to accept a police report recommending the cancellation of a criminal case?
  • Can a court deny bail even when the investigating agency has opined that the accused is innocent?
  • Does an order refusing bail influence the trial court's subsequent determination of guilt or innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Stare Versus Liqat1988 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21Read full judgment →
• Manzoorullah Versus Inayat Ali1988 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  review petitionSupreme Court Rulesprocedural complianceservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition seeking review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10-12-1986. The core legal question addressed is whether a review petition can be formally entertained without fulfilling the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the certificate required under the relevant Supreme Court Rules. The Court held that the petition cannot be formally entertained unless the requirements of the rules are fully satisfied. Additionally, the Court noted that related petitions arising from the same Service Tribunal judgment should be heard by an equally large Bench to ensure consistent consideration of the relief to be granted. The key principle laid down is that procedural prerequisites, such as filing the requisite certificates under the rules, are mandatory for the formal entertainment of review petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be formally entertained without the certificate required under the Supreme Court Rules?
  • Should related petitions arising from the same judgment be heard by an equally large Bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Versus Nazra1988 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15
  leave to appealculpable homicidesudden fightException 4 to Section 300murder convictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that partially allowed an appeal in a murder case. The High Court had converted the respondent's conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly applied the 'sudden fight' exception in the absence of a specific finding that a sudden fight had actually occurred between the parties. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court noted an exchange of abuses, it failed to establish the essential prerequisite of a 'sudden fight' before the assault. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was properly extended. The petition regarding other respondents was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an exchange of abuses between parties satisfy the requirement of a 'sudden fight' under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a finding of a 'sudden fight' a mandatory prerequisite for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without establishing the elements of a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajjamal Hussain Mal Ik Versus Pakistan1988 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15
  criminal appealremissions of sentenceconvictionmilitary courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous petition seeking remissions of his sentence. The petitioner, a retired Major-General, was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment under the Pakistan Army Act and had challenged his conviction through a constitutional petition alongside seeking remissions. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the convict to remissions of sentence under the relevant law and rules. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was based on sound reasoning and that no flaw could be pointed out by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced under the Pakistan Army Act entitled to remissions of sentence as a matter of right under the relevant rules?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to grant remissions of sentence warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad Versus Falak Sher1988 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  petition for special leave to appealdying declarationocular testimonymedical evidencerecovery of weaponballistic reportacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and sentences of the respondents recorded under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in their acquittal. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence, specifically the genuineness of a dying declaration, the credibility of ocular testimony in relation to medical evidence, and the reliability of weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in respect of the respondent who allegedly fired the fatal shot and whose implication was supported by ballistic evidence, while dismissing the petition as regards the other respondents. The key principle laid down is that where ballistic evidence corroborates the ocular and dying declaration testimony regarding the principal accused, leave to appeal may be granted to examine the High Court's reasons for acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in doubting the genuineness of the dying declaration?
  • Does conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant an acquittal in a murder trial?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon matching crime empties provides sufficient corroboration to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Daud1988 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  leave to appealreduction of sentencesudden fightspur of the momentindividual responsibilitymurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-2-1984, which reduced the sentence of Suba respondent from death to imprisonment for life, acquitted Muhammad Sadiq respondent of the charge under section 302, PPC, and reduced the sentences of Muhammad Sadiq and Manzoor Ahmad respondent No.3 under section 323, PPC to the period already undergone. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the convictions and reducing the sentences on the ground that the murder was committed during a sudden fight arising at the spur of the moment where every person was responsible for their own act. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court was based on sound reasons warranted by the evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that in cases of murder committed during a sudden fight arising at the spur of the moment, each participant is individually responsible for their own specific act, justifying a reduction of sentence or alteration of conviction accordingly, and leave to appeal will be refused if the High Court's findings are sound.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an individual is responsible only for their own act when a murder is committed during a sudden fight arising at the spur of the moment?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's reduction of sentence based on sound appreciation of evidence in a sudden fight case?
  • Is a case where the High Court reduces a death sentence to imprisonment for life upon finding a sudden fight a fit case for grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Versus Shaukat1988 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  sentence reductionmitigating circumstancesjudicial discretionage of accusedleave to appealcriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence based on the grounds of provocation and the age of the accused. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court incorrectly identified the provocation (slaps received by the accused) as a mitigating factor—finding it to be self-sought by the accused—the reduction of the sentence was nonetheless justified based on the finding regarding the accused's age. The Court affirmed the High Court's factual determination that the accused was sixteen years old at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of the accused regarding the sentence was not against established legal principles, as the age factor provided a valid basis for the reduction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a self-sought provocation be considered a valid mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Is the factual determination of an accused's age by the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court if supported by material?
  • Does the exercise of judicial discretion to reduce a sentence based on the age of the accused constitute a valid legal ground?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwaar Butt Versus Government of the Punjab1988 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaydepartmental representationservice tribunaljurisdictional requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a Service Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioners, who were deprived of a special research allowance by a Finance Department order, challenged the order before the Service Tribunal after a delay. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned because similar cases were pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of identical cases in the Supreme Court does not constitute a valid justification for condoning a patent delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal, especially when no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of filing a departmental representation against the impugned order. Consequently, the Court refused to grant interim relief, noting that the petitioners had taken a calculated risk in their approach to the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of identical cases before the Supreme Court constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a time-barred appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Is the filing of a departmental representation a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before approaching a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus Tariq Mahmood1988 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23
  leave to appealalteration of convictionmurdergrievous hurtcommon intentionfemoral artery injurycriminal intent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly allowed the criminal appeals of the respondents. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under sections 302 and 397 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased during a robbery incident. The High Court altered the conviction from section 302/34 to section 326/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, relying on the circumstance that only a single blow was struck on a non-vital part of the body, which accidentally severed the femoral artery. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the reasons adopted by the High Court for converting the conviction were sustainable, whether the underlying intent and design of the accused were properly considered, and whether the cited precedent applied. Leave to appeal was refused regarding the co-accused due to a lack of imputed knowledge of the fatal weapon use.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the reasons which prevailed with the High Court for converting the offence from section 302 to section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code are available in this case?
  • Whether when examining the nature of the offence vis-a-vis the intention or knowledge of the culprit it was relevant to consider as to why the accused had attacked the deceased?
  • Whether in all cases where death is due to the cutting of the femoral artery the punishment has to be under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code or whether it depends upon the circumstances of each case including the design of the accused and the weapon used?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Versus Ghulam Muhammad1988 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationmurderalteration of convictionunreasoned judgmentreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  Sher Mohammad filed a petition against the Lahore High Court's judgment which altered Ghulam Muhammad's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304 Part II and reduced his death sentence to imprisonment already undergone, based on a plea of grave and sudden provocation arising from suspected illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the defence version and altering the conviction without recording sufficient and detailed reasons. The Supreme Court found that both the High Court and the Trial Court failed to provide adequate discussion and reasoned analysis for accepting or rejecting the conflicting versions. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter itself, noting that remanding the case would cause further delay. The key principle laid down is that appellate and trial courts must record detailed and cogent reasons when evaluating conflicting prosecution and defence versions in heinous criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can alter a conviction from murder to culpable homicide without providing detailed reasons for accepting the defence version?
  • Is it proper for a court to accept a plea of grave and sudden provocation based on a sketchy and brief discussion?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when both the trial and high court fail to properly discuss and evaluate conflicting versions of an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Mahmood Versus Ishtiaq1988 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
• Khalas Khan Versus Amir Khan1988 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalappreciation of evidencecriminal revisionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Khalas Khan, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14-11-1982. The High Court had previously upheld a trial court's judgment which resulted in the acquittal of the respondents in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence on record and whether the acquittal of the respondents was justified based on that evidence. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and examining the relevant portions of the evidence, the Supreme Court found no merit in the contention that the lower courts failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The Court held that the trial court's reasons for acquittal were sound and that the High Court was justified in its decision to uphold that finding. Consequently, the Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have provided sound reasoning for an acquittal?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal where the evidence has been properly appreciated by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Versus Khushi Muhammad1988 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  leave to appealalteration of convictionreduction of sentenceright of private defenceprivate defence of bodymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the convictions and reduced the sentences of the respondents. The respondents' convictions were modified from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-I/34 and Section 324 of the same Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the respondents' defence version of the incident, which asserted the right of private defence of the person of a female relative who was allegedly being forcibly dragged by the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the evidence and the impugned judgment, held that the High Court was fully justified in accepting the defence version. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that the right of private defence of body was properly established under the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a conviction from Section 302/34 to Section 304-I/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the plea of right of private defence of body is established?
  • Can a plea of right of private defence of the person of another, specifically a female relative being forcibly dragged, justify the mitigation of an offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasnain Ibrahim Versus Muhammad Rana Civiljudge/Rent Controller1988 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19
  contempt of courtundertakingejectmentcivil suitsinterim orderexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. During the proceedings, an undertaking was given by the Advocate-on-Record representing the respondents, through their special attorney, that the respondents would not eject the petitioners from the disputed house pursuant to a specific ejectment order until the final decision of two pending civil suits between the parties. It was further undertaken that if an appeal is filed following the decision of those suits, the execution of the ejectment order would remain subject to any interim order passed by the first appellate court. In light of this binding undertaking, the petitioners' counsel did not press the contempt petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition accordingly, while noting and emphasizing the High Court Chief Justice's direction for the trial court to expedite the pending suits on a day-to-day basis and conclude them promptly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contempt petition be disposed of based on an undertaking given by the respondents regarding the subject matter of pending litigation?
  • What effect does an undertaking not to execute an ejectment order pending civil suits have on a contempt petition?
  • How should trial courts handle proceedings when directed by the High Court to conduct a trial on a day-to-day basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Sabir Ali1988 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalplea of alibiappreciation of evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-3-1981, which acquitted respondents 1 to 4 in a case under Section 304 Part-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misappreciated the evidence on record, particularly regarding the plea of alibi taken by one of the respondents supported by a defense witness. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence and was fully justified in acquitting the respondents. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court where the evidence has been properly evaluated and no misappreciation is established. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's judgment of acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by defense testimony be accepted if the High Court has properly evaluated the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant Manzoor Ahmad against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondent Falak Sher of charges under sections 302, 376, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mst. Munawar Bibi. The trial court had initially convicted and sentenced the respondent based on last seen evidence, an extra-judicial confession, recoveries, and medical evidence. The High Court, however, determined that the dead body was in an extreme state of decomposition, indicating the occurrence took place much earlier than alleged by the prosecution. Upon examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed that the circumstantial and other pieces of evidence were insufficient to warrant a conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last seen evidence and an extra-judicial confession are sufficient to sustain a conviction in an unwitnessed crime when the medical evidence regarding the state of decomposition contradicts the prosecution's timeline?
  • Does an extreme state of decomposition of a dead body warrant interference with the prosecution's alleged time of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin Versus Noor Shahinfsy1988 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24
  criminal petitionmurderacquittalappreciation of evidenceSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court, who were initially convicted by the trial court under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents suffered from any legal defect or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the High Court were based on due and proper appreciation of evidence, and no legal defect or infirmity was pointed out. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court unless a clear legal defect, misappreciation, or perversity is shown in the appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Can a petition against acquittal be maintained without pointing out any legal defect or infirmity in the impugned judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Din Versus Muhammad Tufail1988 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25
  criminal petitionleave to appealmurderalteration of sentencedeath sentencelife imprisonmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the restoration of the death sentence awarded to the respondent by the trial court, which had been altered to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal question involved the propriety of altering the death sentence to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code in view of mitigating circumstances regarding the time of occurrence and the state of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in altering the sentence based on the decomposed state of the dead body and the surrounding evidence, which indicated the occurrence happened earlier than alleged, and that the evidence would not have otherwise warranted the conviction. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts may alter sentences where prosecution evidence and surrounding circumstances present mitigating doubts regarding the exact nature of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a death sentence to life imprisonment when the medical evidence regarding the state of the dead body casts doubt on the prosecution's timeline?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence and reduction of sentence where the evidence does not strictly warrant the higher penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus Muhammad Aslam1988 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  leave to appealmurderculpable homicideself-defenceappraisal of evidencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had altered the respondent's conviction from section 302, Pakistan Penal Code to section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced his sentence of imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment based on a plea of self-defence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence and in accepting the defence version under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent reasons for believing the defence version and was fully justified in altering the conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing that appellate courts may rely on a substantiated plea of self-defence and the statement of the accused to reduce a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where supported by evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a plea of self-defence?
  • Can an appellate court rely on the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to accept a defence version?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota Versus Khushi Muhammad1988 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalself-defencereappraisal of evidencecriminal appealplea of self-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court's judgment was brief and failed to adequately address the plea of self-defence that the trial court had accepted. The Supreme Court examined the trial court's judgment to determine if the reasoning regarding the plea of self-defence was sound and whether a reappraisal of the evidence was warranted. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had provided an elaborate and cogent analysis for accepting the plea of self-defence and acquitting the respondents. Consequently, the Court determined that the case did not merit the grant of leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence to challenge the trial court's findings on the plea of self-defence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the reappraisal of evidence regarding a plea of self-defence?
  • Is a High Court judgment upholding an acquittal necessarily defective if it does not extensively discuss a plea of self-defence already elaborated upon by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Zafar Abbas1988 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25
  leave to appealre-appraisal of evidenceacquittalmurdercriminal appealSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents, Zafar Abbas and Muhammad Iqbal, of charges related to the murder of Salabat. The respondents had initially been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, with a fine imposed under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's acquittal by requesting a re-appraisal of the evidence regarding the facts of the case. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the record, determined that the case did not warrant a re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal was without merit and dismissed it, thereby upholding the acquittal granted by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the sole purpose of re-appraising evidence in a criminal case?
  • Is a case fit for re-appraisal of evidence if the High Court has already acquitted the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Versus Abdul Ghani1988 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21
  private defenceright of self-defencecriminal trespasspossession of landexceeding right of private defenceleave to appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that their actions resulting in two deaths and five injuries were protected as a valid exercise of the right of private defence of person and property. The complainant party had stocked hay on a disputed plot of land in the cultivating possession of the respondents. When requested to remove it, the complainant party failed to do so and initiated a confrontation resulting in injuries on both sides. The High Court found that the respondents faced criminal trespass and imminent threat of grievous hurt. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that a party in possession is entitled to use reasonable force to resist criminal trespass and defend against severe physical attack. Finding that the right of private defence was not exceeded, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party in lawful possession of property have the right to exercise force to resist criminal trespass by an opposing party?
  • Whether the receipt of numerous injuries by the accused party during a confrontation justifies the use of weapons in exercise of the right of private defence of body and property?
  • Can a complainant party rely upon its own act of criminal trespass to deny the accused party the right of self-defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Benazir Bhutto Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06
  political partiesfundamental rightsconstitutional petitionvires of statutepublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a constitutional petition filed by Benazir Bhutto challenging the vires of sections 3-A and 3-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, inserted by Ordinance No. XLII of 1979, as being violative of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, while also considering the protective coverage afforded under Article 270-A of the Constitution. The core legal question involves the constitutionality of the impugned provisions governing political parties in light of fundamental rights and constitutional indemnification. The Court held that these constitutional questions are of public importance requiring full consideration and accordingly issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan, the Election Commission, and the Advocates General of the Provinces for a full hearing. The key principle established is that challenges to statutory provisions implicating fundamental rights and protected under constitutional provisions raise matters of public importance warranting comprehensive judicial review after notice to relevant law officers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sections 3-A and 3-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962 violate Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • Does Article 270-A of the Constitution provide protective coverage to Ordinance No. XLII of 1979?
  • Do challenges to the constitutionality of political party regulations raise questions of public importance requiring consideration by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Versus Muhammad Younis1988 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Versus Ahmad Bakhsh1988 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderappraisal of evidencecriminal administration of justicerecoveries
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court appraised the evidence against the primary respondent in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice, given prompt FIR lodging, eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed regarding four respondents, but granted leave to appeal solely against the acquittal of the main respondent, Ahmad Bakhsh, to examine the proper appraisal of evidence. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal against acquittal may be granted when there is a prima facie case that the High Court's evaluation of ocular and corroborative evidence against a principal accused departed from established principles of safe criminal administration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence against the principal accused was appraised in accordance with the well-established principles of safe administration of criminal justice?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be pressed against a single respondent while being abandoned against others?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehzeeb-Ul-Hassan Shah Versus State1988 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29
  review jurisdictionvires of memorandumplinth areaChief Settlement CommissionerCantonment Land Administration Rulesfresh argument
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a review petition wherein the petitioner challenged the vires of Memorandum No. 4952-PI-Reh/60 dated 12-7-1960 on the ground that it conflicted with the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, and contended that the transfer of land could not exceed three times the plinth area without a special order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the second proviso to section 2(4). The core legal questions pertained to whether a new argument challenging the vires of a memorandum could be entertained for the first time in review jurisdiction, and whether the validity of such a memorandum remained an open question. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that fresh arguments not raised during the hearing of the main appeal cannot be agitated within the scope of review jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the legal issue concerning the vires of the memorandum had already been settled and concluded by binding precedent, which overruled the contrary High Court view.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a fresh argument regarding the vires of an administrative memorandum for the first time in review jurisdiction?
  • Whether an argument not raised at the time of the hearing of the main appeal can be agitated in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Jahan Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-02
  industrial concernresumption proceedingssettlement schemeconsent orderpast and closed transactiondisplaced personsauction confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the transfer and subsequent resumption of an industrial concern (a flour mill) originally allotted in 1950. The core legal question was whether the legal representatives of the original transferee were entitled to the benefit of a proviso added to paragraph 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII on 30-10-1973, which barred resumption proceedings where 25% of the transfer price had been paid. The Supreme Court held that since the dispute had been settled by a competent consent order prior to the prospective amendment, and the appellants had defaulted on that agreed payment, the matter had become a past and closed transaction incapable of being reopened by subsequent prospective amendments. The Court laid down the principle that a prospective statutory amendment or rule change cannot affect a dispute that has already attained finality through a valid consent order, and that wilful default under such an order renders resumption and subsequent auction proceedings unassailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of a prospective proviso added to Settlement Scheme No. VIII can affect a dispute that has attained finality through a prior consent order?
  • Can proceedings be maintained against a valid consent order passed by a competent authority under the settlement laws?
  • Does a wilful default in complying with a conditional consent order for the payment of transfer dues render the resumption of property automatically operative?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Fatima Versus Muhammad Naeem1988 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  appeal against acquittalocular testimonyinterested witnessesrecovery evidencechemical examiner reportcriminal justice administrationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting four respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case relied on ocular testimony from two interested witnesses, dying declarations, and recovery evidence of blood-stained weapons. The High Court had acquitted the respondents, finding the ocular testimony unreliable due to extreme enmity and the failure to distinguish between guilty and innocent parties. Furthermore, the High Court rejected the recovery evidence due to the unexplained three-month delay in sending blood-stained items for chemical analysis, rendering the serologist's report unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the findings and determined that the High Court had fully considered all aspects of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was neither perverse nor contrary to established principles of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not undertake a reappraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal where the lower court's reasoning was sound, and thus refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending blood-stained recovered items for chemical examination render the recovery evidence devoid of corroborative value?
  • Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal if the lower court's findings are not perverse?
  • Is the testimony of interested eye-witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration in cases of long-standing enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashida Begum Versus Qamar-Uz-Zaman1988 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17
  leave to appealcriminal investigationapprover testimonybenefit of doubtpolice misconductacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302/34, 120-B, and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of Malik Amir Bakhsh Khokhar, based largely on the testimony of an approver and circumstantial evidence. The High Court, however, set aside these convictions, finding the approver's testimony lacked credibility and sufficient corroboration, thereby extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted significant irregularities in the initial investigation, including evidence that respondent No. 1, who was in charge of the investigation, had interfered with the crime scene and manipulated the investigative process. Given these serious procedural failures and the potential for miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the entire case, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring that the requirements of law for the safe administration of criminal justice are fully observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the interference by an investigating officer in the collection of evidence necessitate a re-examination of the case by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a conviction based on an approver's testimony be sustained if the investigation itself is shown to be compromised by the investigating officer?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to grant leave to appeal when the High Court's acquittal is based on a flawed assessment of the investigative process?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Mahmood Versus Manzoor Hussain1988 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-28
  concurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionamendment of written statementadverse possessionbelated amendmentSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of a disputed house, which both the Trial Court and the first appellate Court found to be owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, a finding left undisturbed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings of fact suffered from any legal infirmity and whether the Trial Court rightly refused an application to amend the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession at the stage of final arguments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact were unexceptionable and that the refusal to allow the amendment of the written statement at a belated stage, without any explanation for the delay and after evidence had already been recorded, was justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that amendments seeking to introduce new pleas at a late stage after the conclusion of evidence may be validly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction when no infirmity is shown?
  • Can a party be permitted to amend its written statement to raise a plea of adverse possession after the evidence of both parties has been recorded and the case is fixed for arguments?
  • Whether the refusal of a trial court to allow a belated amendment of the pleadings without sufficient explanation warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21
  criminal reviewbail cancellationcommon intentionerror of factsupreme court reviewdistinguishable role
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal review petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning an earlier judgment involving the cancellation of bail and common intention in a criminal case. The core legal question addressed is whether an error of fact on the face of the judgment regarding the role and weapon attributed to a petitioner warrants a review and amendment of the judgment, and whether the bail granted to the petitioner should be cancelled. The court held that there was indeed an apparent error of fact regarding the weapon ascribed to Nazir Ahmad, distinguishing his case from that of the co-accused Abdul Kabir who was armed with a pistol. Consequently, the court reviewed and amended the previous judgment to correct the factual error, upheld the refusal to cancel bail for Nazir Ahmad, and cancelled the bail of the co-accused Abdul Kabir. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will rectify an error of fact on the face of its judgment in review proceedings where such an error leads to an erroneous consideration of a party's distinct role in a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an error of fact on the face of a judgment regarding a petitioner's role warrants a review of the case?
  • Can bail be cancelled for an accused whose case is distinguishable from a co-accused who used a firearm?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can amend its previous judgment to rectify factual inaccuracies upon a criminal review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hayat Versus State1988 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mihri Khan Versus Ghulam Rasool1988 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-23
  bail cancellationcriminal appealprima facie caseextra-judicial confessionoffence punishable with death
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the orders of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Bashir. The core legal question concerns whether there was sufficient material implicating the respondents to warrant withholding bail in a case involving an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petitions into appeals, and held that upon examining the relevant statements on record, including extra-judicial confessions and statements before respectables, a prima facie case was made out and there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondents were guilty. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that where sufficient prima facie material exists connecting an accused to an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, bail ought not to be granted, and appellate intervention is justified to cancel bail improperly granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be cancelled when there is sufficient material showing a prima facie case against the accused?
  • Does an extra-judicial confession made before respectables constitute reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a capital offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Muhammad Hayat1988 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Maryam Versus Irshad Ahmad1988 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  ocular testimonycredibility of witnessesinjured witnesssentencing discretioncriminal appealdeath sentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which convicted the petitioners for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The primary legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by two witnesses—one injured and one residing near the crime scene—and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in commuting the death sentences imposed by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular testimony credible and sufficient to support the findings of the High Court, noting there was no reason for the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. Regarding the petition for the restoration of death sentences, the Supreme Court held that the High Court provided substantial reasons for its decision to commute the sentences and declined to interfere with that judicial discretion. The Court affirmed that where ocular evidence is consistent and credible, particularly involving an injured witness, it constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction, and appellate courts will not interfere with sentencing discretion absent compelling justification.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to support a conviction in a murder case?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in commuting a death sentence?
  • Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a criminal petition for leave to appeal cause the petition to abate?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Versus Abdul Majid1988 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-21
  natural justicedomestic inquiryeducational institutionsunfair meansdisciplinary proceedingscross-examinationstudent disciplineadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside a disciplinary order passed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a student for using unfair means during an examination. The High Court had invalidated the order primarily because the student was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the supervisory staff who reported the incident. The core legal question was whether the principles of natural justice in domestic inquiries by educational institutions mandate the examination and cross-examination of witnesses in the presence of the accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that disciplinary forums in educational institutions are not required to follow the technical procedural rules of a judicial trial, such as the mandatory cross-examination of witnesses. The Court affirmed that the requirements of natural justice are flexible and depend on the circumstances of each case. As long as the student is provided a fair opportunity to represent their side and rebut the material against them, the proceedings are valid. The Court concluded that the disciplinary committee acted fairly, given the student's admission and the evidence of verbatim copying.

  Questions settled

  • Are disciplinary forums in educational institutions required to follow the technical rules of evidence applicable to judicial trials?
  • Does the principle of natural justice in a domestic inquiry against a student mandate the cross-examination of witnesses in the student's presence?
  • What is the standard for determining whether a disciplinary inquiry by an educational institution satisfies the requirements of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahoor Versus Lal Muhammad1988 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10
  constitutional jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionamendment of pleadingsgeneral power to amendadmission in pleadingsunsound mindpreliminary issue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding property ownership and challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court that had set aside an order of an Additional District Judge in a constitutional petition. The core legal question concerned the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review orders passed by civil courts in revisional jurisdiction, as well as the power of a civil court to allow the amendment of a reply or proceeding under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that while the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked lightly against final orders of civil courts acting within their jurisdiction, it can be exercised when a subordinate court acts without lawful authority or flouts statutory provisions, such as ignoring the general power of amendment under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked in respect of an order passed by a civil court in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does a civil court possess the general power under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow the amendment of a written reply or proceeding other than a pleading under Order VI Rule 17?
  • Can a party be permitted to withdraw an admission made by mistake in a proceeding or pleading by way of amendment?
  • What is the distinction between evidentiary admissions and admissions made in pleadings under the law of evidence and procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Versus Jamal Din1988 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonychance witnessesappreciation of evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a brother of the deceased and complainant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The prosecution alleged the respondent killed the deceased and another person over a land dispute by inflicting hatchet blows. The High Court acquitted the respondent, doubting the presence of the eye-witnesses, considering them chance witnesses, and noting the respondent's advanced age and infirmity made it unlikely he could perpetrate the assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its re-appraisement of the evidence and rejection of ocular testimony and motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in doubting the eye-witnesses and the motive, noting it was a matter of re-appraisement of evidence without any legal error, and accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony by classifying the witnesses as chance witnesses?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the re-appraisement of evidence by the High Court when no legal error in appreciation is shown?
  • Whether the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when ocular testimony is discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Versus Rasoola1988 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-23
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderre appreciation of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 14-2-1982, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence and the propriety of the High Court's order acquitting the accused persons in a murder trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court evaluated the evidence on sound principles, finding no justification to interfere with the acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal and the dismissal of the enhancement revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the evidence has been evaluated on sound principles?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a judgment of acquittal where the High Court has properly appreciated the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Versus Nasrullah1988 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24
  leave to appealacquittalre-appraisal of evidencemurdercriminal appealSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Nasrullah, of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had initially been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The complainant sought to challenge the acquittal through this petition. The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, which primarily requested a re-appraisal of the evidence regarding the factual findings of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it would not undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in this matter, as the case did not meet the criteria for such an exercise. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thereby upholding the acquittal granted by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal matter where the High Court has already acquitted the accused?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the sole ground is a request for re-appraisal of factual evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Versus State1988 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• Najma Versus Nazir1988 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  leave to appealacquittalattempted rapehouse trespassreappraisal of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing her revision petition against the acquittal of the respondents for charges relating to house trespass, abduction, and attempt to commit rape under sections 452, 366, 376, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondents forcibly dragged the petitioner into a baithak and attempted to rape her before fleeing upon the alarm being raised. The trial court had convicted the respondents, but the Sessions Judge acquitted them on appeal, citing improbabilities in the prosecution story, including the lack of injuries, the presence of female family members in the residence, and the surrounding circumstances of the densely populated area. The High Court upheld this acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the record and concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court were in conformity with the requirements of the safe administration of criminal justice, finding no ground for reappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on an evaluation of evidence?
  • Is an appellate court justified in setting aside a conviction for attempted rape where the prosecution story is found to be highly improbable and unsupported by medical evidence or marks of violence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Versus Munir Ahmad1988 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Versus Muhammad Abdullah1988 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan and Bahawalpur Division1988 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Versus Mazharullah1988 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22
  arbitration clausestay of suitsteps in proceedingspartnership disputerendition of accountspetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for rendition of accounts relating to a partnership firm, wherein the trial court dismissed the petitioners' application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The appellate court set aside the dismissal, but the High Court subsequently reversed the appellate court's order, holding that the petitioners had taken steps in the proceedings prior to filing the application and were therefore not entitled to seek a stay of the suit under the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioners had taken steps in the proceedings disentitling them from invoking arbitration. The Court held that the High Court's finding of fact based on the record was unexceptionable and that no question of law arose. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a party taking steps in legal proceedings cannot subsequently invoke an arbitration clause for a stay of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party taking steps in the proceedings before filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is entitled to seek a stay of the suit?
  • Does a finding of fact regarding participation in legal proceedings by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Versus Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department1988 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  pro forma promotionseniority rightsservice matteroverseersleave to appealadministrative orderpublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions filed by Overseers seeking pro forma promotion to the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, claiming parity with juniors who were promoted earlier. The petitioners relied on specific departmental orders regarding other employees to assert their rights to seniority and retrospective promotion. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the promotion orders cited by the petitioners, noting that the order concerning Khalil Ahmad explicitly stated it conferred no right of seniority or precedence over others and was subject to reversion if a senior's claim was established. Regarding the petitioner Abdul Rashid, the Court found that the promotion of others by the Government of Baluchistan occurred when the petitioner was not in competition, and the relevant government entity was not impleaded. The Court held that the cited orders did not create a vested right to pro forma promotion. Concluding that no substantial question of law of public importance existed under the constitutional framework, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the administrative adjustments did not entitle the petitioners to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does an administrative order granting retrospective pay adjustments to an employee, while explicitly preserving the seniority rights of others, confer a right to pro forma promotion on those others?
  • Can a petitioner claim pro forma promotion based on the promotion of individuals by a provincial government that was not impleaded as a party?
  • Does a claim for pro forma promotion based on departmental adjustments constitute a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad Versus Abdul Aziz1988 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zumerred Versus State1988 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
• Walayat Versus State1988 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Investigation) Versus Shireen Ayub Khan1988 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Jannat Bibi Versus Noora1988 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07
  leave to appealacquittalappraisal of evidencenight-time occurrenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a complainant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby five respondents convicted under sections 302/149, 148, and 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code were acquitted and their death and imprisonment sentences set aside. The core legal question involved the appraisal of evidence regarding identification in a night-time occurrence without an identification parade, and whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that in a dark night occurrence where prosecution witnesses identified the assailants by face but came to know their names and addresses afterwards, such identification without an identification parade is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finding that the High Court's view of the evidence violated no principle of law and was merely a matter of appraisal, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that identification of accused persons for the first time at trial without a prior identification parade, particularly in a night-time occurrence where names were unknown at the time of the incident, is insufficient for conviction, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible appraisal of evidence by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of accused persons without an identification parade sufficient when their names and addresses were not known at the time of the incident?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal based on the High Court's appraisal of evidence where no principle of law has been violated?
  • Whether the High Court's evaluation of evidence in a night-time murder case warrants leave to appeal.
  Read full judgment →
• Shan Muhammad Versus Muhammad Nazir1988 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10
  criminal petitionleave to appealdifference of opinionmurder referencesentence enhancementcompensationcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against an order of the High Court passed in a murder reference and criminal appeal, where a difference of opinion between two judges regarding the sentence of the accused (death versus life imprisonment) led to the matter being referred to a third judge as referee. The referee judge maintained the lesser penalty of life imprisonment but substantially enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the heirs of the deceased. Both the convict and the complainant challenged the order before the Supreme Court, raising contentions regarding the validity of the compensation undertaking and the appropriateness of the lesser sentence. The Supreme Court considered that the matter required further examination and granted leave to appeal in both petitions, directing that the accused shall not be released pending final disposal of the matter. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of discretion in awarding sentencing alternatives and compensation upon a reference resulting from a split verdict in a capital punishment case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the referee judge in a murder reference can enhance the compensation amount while maintaining the lesser penalty of life imprisonment?
  • Whether the discretion to award a lesser sentence in a capital case was exercised on sound legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus State1988 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Statea1988 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08
  injured witnessocular testimonysudden quarrelmitigation of sentenceleave to appealcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of several accused persons involved in a criminal occurrence resulting in one death and injuries to two others. The core legal questions were whether the conviction and sentence of the principal accused for murder were sustainable, and whether the sentences of the other accused warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the principal accused. Regarding the enhancement petition, the Court held that because the incident arose from a sudden quarrel and exchange of hot words rather than premeditation, the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment was justified. The Court affirmed the High Court's findings, dismissing both petitions. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of injured witnesses, even if related to the deceased, carries significant weight in criminal trials, and the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight is a mitigating factor against the imposition of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an injured witness, who is related to the deceased, carry evidentiary weight in a criminal trial?
  • Is the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight a valid ground for refusing the death penalty?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali Versus Barkat Bibi1988 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-07
  customary lawMuslim Personal Lawretrospective effectinheritanceWillShariat Actproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a long-standing property dispute initiated in 1957 by respondent, a daughter of the deceased owner, claiming land on the basis of a 1940 Will, where the lower courts had decided the matter under customary law. The core legal question was whether the High Court and District Judge had correctly interpreted the applicable custom regarding the owner's competence to make a gift or bequest. The Supreme Court held that the enactment of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962, with retrospective effect, mandated that the succession and the validity of the Will must be examined under Muslim Personal Law rather than custom, rendering the Will invalid without the consent of other heirs. However, the Court laid down the principle that where the application of Muslim Personal Law would entitle the claimant to a larger share than claimed under the Will, and the litigation has spanned decades, the Supreme Court may decline to interfere with the lower courts' decree to prevent further protracted litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962 apply retrospectively to determine successions prior to the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948?
  • Can a legal heir take advantage of a Will under Muslim Personal Law without the consent of the other heirs?
  • Will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with a decree under appeal when applying correct personal law would yield an equivalent or greater share to the respondent after decades of litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq Versus General Assistant (Revenue) with Powers of Registration Officer, Okara1988 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz Versus Shahbaz-Ul-Haq1988 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  acquittalright of private defencepetition for leave to appealcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondents for charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the propriety of the acquittal based on the right of private defence and the dismissal of the State appeal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's evaluation of evidence—crediting the defence version that the accused acted in the right of private defence to rescue a minor from an attempted unnatural act—was plausible and sound, and the High Court's dismissal of the State appeal was neither perverse nor illegal. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding acquittal and the exercise of the right of private defence will not be interfered with lightly by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on the right of private defence?
  • Does the right of private defence extend to rescuing a minor from the commission of an unnatural offence?
  • Whether an appellate court's dismissal of a State appeal against acquittal warrants interference when the trial court's judgment is neither perverse nor illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Versus Ameer Alias Ameero1988 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  free fightculpable homicidesuppression of injuriesocular testimonycriminal liabilitysudden quarrelleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified convictions for murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly altered convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the finding of a sudden, unplanned "free fight" where the prosecution had suppressed injuries sustained by the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s assessment was justified. The Court established that where both the prosecution and defense suppress the true origin of a conflict, and injuries are sustained by both sides, the court must meticulously sift the evidence to determine individual liability. Crucially, when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused, the credibility of ocular testimony is undermined. Consequently, in instances of sudden fights occurring without premeditation or the taking of undue advantage, the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 302, as the criminal liability does not extend to premeditated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused render ocular testimony doubtful?
  • How should a court determine criminal liability when both the prosecution and defense suppress the true version of an occurrence?
  • Does a sudden fight without premeditation or undue advantage fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Versus Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd.1988 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-05
  tax holidayspinning sectionincome taxassessment yearreference applicationquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a tax holiday dispute under Section 15-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent company acquired a textile mill, including a spinning section set up in July 1954 by the Thal Development Authority, which had enjoyed a tax holiday. The respondent claimed a tax holiday for the spinning section for the assessment year 1960-61, which the Income-tax Officer disallowed, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed. The High Court dismissed the subsequent reference application, holding that the determination of the assessment year was a question of fact. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 15-B(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and evaluated the relevant financial and assessment years. The Supreme Court held that the fifth assessment year for the tax holiday fell in 1960-61 due to the specific dates of acquisition and accounting periods, rendering the respondent eligible for the relief. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of the fifth year for a tax holiday under Section 15-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is a question of fact or a question of law?
  • Whether an assessee who acquires an industrial undertaking is entitled to claim the remaining period of a tax holiday under Section 15-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • How is the five-year period of a tax holiday calculated under Section 15-B(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 with respect to the financial and assessment years?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Versus State1988 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-11
  assets disproportionate to known sourcesanti-corruptionillegal gratificationconfiscation of propertycriminal appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a Patwari, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant was originally tried under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and subsequently convicted under section 5-C(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the trial court, with a sentence of imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture of property. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintaining the forfeiture. The core legal question examined was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's plea that the properties were purchased by his wife and brother from their own funds and whether the evidence established his possession under section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court held that the overwhelming documentary evidence and admissions established that the appellant provided the purchase money for properties registered in the names of his wife and brother, who lacked independent income sources, and that he failed to satisfactorily account for them. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant can be convicted for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income when properties are purchased in the names of family members?
  • Does the failure to prove independent sources of income of a spouse or relative justify the conclusion that assets were acquired by the public servant?
  • Whether the appellate court was justified in maintaining the forfeiture of immovable property while reducing the sentence of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Rashid Versus State1988 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Tariq Perwaiz Versus State1988 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestprostitution denHudood Ordinancecriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband and wife against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them pre-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail where allegations of operating a prostitution den were supported by independent witnesses and police raid findings, notwithstanding their contention of absence from the spot and lack of knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail as the first information report indicated their presence and subsequent escape, and there was no record indication of false implication or strong malice against the police. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that pre-arrest bail requires clear and strong grounds of mala fides or false implication, which were absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the first information report explicitly notes the presence and escape of the accused?
  • Are allegations of police malice sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail if they are not clear and strong?
  • Does the absence of the accused from the spot at the exact time of a raid entitle them to pre-arrest bail as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Bati Khan Versus Gulzar1988 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus Khuda Bakhsh1988 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Nazar Versus State1988 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhamma Asghar Versus Chairman, Board of Technical Education, Lahore1988 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis Versus Zakia Bibi1988 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• Zahida Zaidi Versus Jamaluddin Ahmad1988 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-23Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Pak, Secretariat No.L, Rawalpindi1988 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  promotional examinationSection Officercivil servantsservice tribunalspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the legality of a promotional examination for the posts of Section Officers. The core legal question was whether the holding of a promotional examination for filling Section Officer vacancies conflicts with Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court held that appointments to the post of Section Officer are made by selection from eligible officials serving in grades 11 to 16 who lack a common seniority list, and therefore the holding of a promotional examination does not conflict with the aforementioned statutory provisions. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that selection for Section Officer posts through a promotional examination among eligible officials without a common seniority list is legally valid and does not violate the Civil Servants Act or its allied rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the holding of a promotional examination for the post of Section Officer conflict with Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Are appointments to the post of Section Officer considered promotions in the ordinary sense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus Abdul Aziz1988 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-21
  Rehabilitation Settlement SchemeinheritanceShariat Lawrefugee right-holdermutation of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examined whether the inheritance of a refugee right-holder, who migrated to Pakistan and died after filing and verifying his property claim but before actual land allotment, should be governed by the special rules of succession under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme or by Shariat Law. The Supreme Court held that under the controlling instructions dated 14-4-1954 issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, special deviations under paragraphs 46, 46-A, and 67 of the Scheme apply only to refugee right-holders who died before filing their claims. Where a claimant died after filing and verifying a claim, the normal rule of succession under Shariat Law applies in its entirety. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision applying Shariat Law to the inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the special rules of succession under paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme apply to a refugee right-holder who died after filing his claim?
  • Do the instructions dated 14-4-1954 issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner have legal force and efficacy?
  • What rule of succession governs the inheritance of a refugee claimant who died after filing and verification of his claim but before land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Shah Versus State1988 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain Versus Qaisarah Begum1988 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionsufficient causejudicial discretioncivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an application for the restoration of a regular second appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the inadvertent omission of a counsel's clerk in noting a case on the cause list constitutes 'sufficient cause' for the readmission of an appeal dismissed in default. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the discretion of the court regarding 'sufficient cause' must be exercised judicially and that litigants should not be lightly deprived of a hearing when there is no deliberate default or gross negligence. The Court laid down the principle that an isolated inadvertent slip by a clerk, promptly rectified by a restoration application within ten days while the matter remained at the motion stage, warrants the restoration of the case to prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inadvertent omission of a counsel's clerk in noting a date on the cause list constitute sufficient cause for restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Whether the discretion of a court in determining sufficient cause for the readmission of a dismissed case must be exercised judiciously having regard to all circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• National Travels Versus Abdul Qayyum1988 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  leave to appealevictiondefault in rentbona fide personal needconstitutional petitionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-tenant sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment dismissing its constitutional petition against an eviction order passed by the first appellate authority. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller had condoned the single default in rent and rejected the personal need ground, but the appellate authority reversed both findings and ordered eviction. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the exercise of discretion by the Rent Controller and the establishment of the landlord's personal need. The Court held that while the first appellate authority erred in not properly examining the Rent Controller's exercise of discretion regarding the default, the concurrent finding regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need was correctly recorded and remained intact. The Court laid down that periodic increases in rent do not negate the landlord's established personal need for the premises when the landlord is not otherwise gainfully employed. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority must examine the propriety and manner of discretion exercised by a Rent Controller when reviewing a finding of default in rent?
  • Can periodic increases in rent be utilized by a tenant to challenge the bona fide personal need of a landlord otherwise established?
  • Does the retirement of a landlord as a professor negate his bona fide personal need to start a business?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Versus Marayam1988 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  agricultural landinheritancesale of sharerevisional jurisdictionlimitationousterleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the concurrent findings of the Additional District Judge and the High Court, which held that the respondent had not sold her inherited share in agricultural land to her real brothers, the petitioners. The core legal questions for consideration were whether the respondent sold her share in the disputed land and whether the suits filed by the petitioners were barred by time. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the finding of the Additional District Judge regarding the non-establishment of the sales was fully justified by the evidence on record, and further held that the contention of limitation had little merit as there was no reliable evidence establishing the ouster of the respondent from the land. The key principles laid down are that findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts regarding the absence of a sale transaction based on evidence will not be interfered with, and limitation in suits involving co-sharers requires reliable evidence of ouster.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the sale of inherited agricultural land was not established can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does a suit between co-sharers become time-barred in the absence of reliable evidence of ouster?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fatima Versus Rahim Bakhsh1988 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-04
  occupancy tenancyextinction of occupancy tenanciesshare of produceapportionment of landlandlord and tenantPunjab Tenancy Act
  Summary & questions settled

  These three appeals by leave of the court addressed the true meaning and scope of section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, specifically clause (b) of subsection (2) and subsection (4), regarding the apportionment of ownership rights between landlords and occupancy tenants. The core legal question revolved around how to determine the proportionate share of land to be vested in an occupancy tenant who pays rent in the form of a share of the produce, particularly when sub-tenants or tenants-at-will are involved, and whether internal shares or cultivation arrangements affect the statutory distribution between the landlord and the occupancy tenant. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of section 114 is exhaustive for the proportionate vesting of ownership based strictly on the produce share payable between the landlord and the occupancy tenant, without accounting for third-party sub-tenants or net profit deductions. The Court affirmed the decisions of the High Court, ruling that the occupancy tenant is entitled to land corresponding to their share of the produce while the landlord takes the remainder, and consequently dismissed all three appeals.

  Questions settled

  • How is the proportionate share of ownership calculated under section 114(2)(b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act when an occupancy tenant pays rent in the form of a share of the produce?
  • Does the presence of a sub-tenant or tenant-at-will under an occupancy tenant affect the calculation of the occupancy tenant's share for the vesting of ownership under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act?
  • Whether the internal arrangements or cultivation by third parties can reduce the occupancy tenant's share of produce in determining proprietary rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar Versus Noor Bano1988 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  interim orderstatus quocivil revisionleave to appealtitle suitpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an interim order of status quo passed by the High Court in a civil revision arising out of a pending title suit. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interim regulatory order of status quo passed during the pendency of proceedings where the petitioner contended lack of a prima facie case, absence of respondent possession, and prejudice to executed ejectment decrees. The Supreme Court held that the case was not fit for interference at this stage as the order merely preserves the existing position, noting that the petitioner may seek suitable modification of the interim order from the relevant forum if any impediment arises from his ejectment decrees. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interim regulatory order of status quo passed by the High Court in a pending title suit?
  • Does an interim order of status quo preserve the existing position of the property in dispute?
  • Can a party seek modification of an interim status quo order if it creates impediments regarding executed ejectment decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadamin Versus State1988 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-01Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Versus Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan1988 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-06
  land allotmentProduce Index Unitssettlement proceedingsfinality of ordersre-calculation of claimsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the allotment of land and the calculation of Produce Index Units (P.I.Us). The appellants, having been allotted land based on a specific P.I.U. calculation, sought re-calculation of their entitlement, arguing that the original assessment was erroneous. The Settlement Commissioner had previously refused to re-calculate the units, citing the finality of earlier orders passed in 1967. The core legal question was whether the appellants could seek re-calculation of their P.I.Us despite the finality of the previous settlement orders. The Supreme Court held that while the previous orders had attained finality, the interest of justice and equity necessitated a re-calculation of the P.I.Us to which the appellants were entitled, given that there was no dispute regarding their underlying entitlement. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Notified Authority with directions to re-calculate the P.I.Us in the presence of the concerned parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek re-calculation of Produce Index Units after the underlying settlement orders have attained finality?
  • Does the finality of a settlement order preclude the correction of a miscalculation in Produce Index Units when the entitlement itself is undisputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoon Versus State1988 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-28
  murderextra-judicial confessionocular testimonyadmissibility of evidencecriminal appealappreciation of evidencepolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of five individuals. The prosecution's case relied on ocular testimony and an alleged extra-judicial confession by a co-accused. The core legal questions were the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession and the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. The Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confession was inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as it was made in the presence of police. Furthermore, the Court found the ocular testimony inherently unreliable due to the witnesses' unnatural conduct, the lack of a credible explanation for their presence, and inconsistencies between their account and the initial report. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that a confession made in the presence of police is inadmissible, and ocular testimony must be scrutinized for naturalness and consistency, particularly when witnesses fail to report a crime promptly or act in a manner inconsistent with human behavior during a violent incident.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made by an accused person in the presence of police admissible in evidence?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses during a crime render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary evidence, including the motive and eyewitness accounts, is found to be unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sattu Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealself-defence pleavicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, Lehar Khan, sought bail on the grounds that his conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had been set aside by the High Court, which maintained his conviction only under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he received a four-year sentence. The petitioner argued that the fatal injury was attributed solely to his co-accused, Sattu Khan, and that the petitioner's own conviction related only to an injury caused to a prosecution witness. Furthermore, leave to appeal had been granted to examine whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defence and determining possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court, having considered the arguments, held that the sentence of the petitioner should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of security and sureties to the satisfaction of the relevant authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending an appeal in the Supreme Court when the conviction under the primary charge has been set aside?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when their conviction is limited to a lesser offence and the main charge was attributed to a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →