Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
- Sadiq Muhammad Versus Hassan Bakhsh1988 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that altered the respondent's conviction from murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence in rejecting the prosecution's case and accepting the respondent's plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s evaluation was sound. The prosecution's ocular testimony was deemed unreliable due to material discrepancies, including contradictions between the witnesses' accounts and medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and the distance of the firing. Furthermore, the prosecution's inconsistent stance on the motive and the physical evidence—specifically the location of wounds on the deceased's back—supported the defense's version that the respondent acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering the deceased in a compromising position. The judgment reinforces that appellate courts may reject ocular testimony when it lacks material corroboration and conflicts with established medical facts.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be altered from murder to culpable homicide based on the defense's version of grave and sudden provocation?
- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired render witness testimony unreliable?
- Is the testimony of close relations of the deceased insufficient to sustain a murder conviction without material corroboration when discrepancies exist?
- Muhammad Sadiq Versus Muhammad Hanif1988 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court which altered the conviction of the respondents from Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 326/149 of the same Code, reducing their sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner, who was the complainant, contended that the High Court erred in its assessment of the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries, particularly in describing two head injuries as simple when the medical evidence indicated that the cause of death was the cumulative effect of multiple injuries, including those to the head. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the alteration of the conviction and the reduction of the sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment was legally justified.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was legally justified in altering a conviction from Section 302/149 to Section 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the cause of death was the cumulative effect of multiple injuries?
- Whether head injuries can be treated as simple in nature when medical evidence attributes the cause of death to the cumulative effect of those and other injuries?
- Whether a prior exchange of abuses precludes the formation of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder?
- Wahida Akhtar Versus Amtul Ghafoor1988 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad Versus Allah Wasai1988 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
- Hafizur Rahman Versus State1988 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
- Pehlwan Versus Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab1988 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the refusal of proprietary rights over state land. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants established a valid allotment and lawful occupation of the land in question under the Ejected Tenants Scheme to entitle them to proprietary rights. The Supreme Court held that the original register of allotment demonstrated that the land was never allotted to the appellants, and their long-term occupation and payment of land revenue did not convert unauthorized possession into a lawful title. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs, affirming that mere occupation and payment of dues without a subsisting allotment confer no ownership rights.
Questions settled- Does long-term occupation of state land and payment of land revenue confer proprietary rights in the absence of a valid allotment?
- Can a claim for ownership rights be sustained solely on the basis of entries in a Roznamcha Waqiati that fail to show an actual allotment?
- Bibi Versus Nazir Ali1988 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
- Hlauj Khan Versus Member, Board of Revenue1988 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a joint pre-emptor, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in a constitutional petition, whereby his claim was deleted and that of his co-pre-emptor was allowed. The original dispute arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land, which was partially decreed by the revenue authorities. In the constitutional petition, the High Court permitted the deletion of the petitioner and his claim, subsequently granting relief to the remaining pre-emptor. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, could summarily permit the deletion of a party and abandonment of relief, thereby affecting substantive rights involving the principle of sinker, without proper examination by the courts of original or revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this procedural and substantive aspect of the case.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can summarily permit the deletion of a party and abandonment of a part of the relief in a pre-emption matter?
- Does the deletion of a joint pre-emptor in a pre-emption suit affect the substantive right of pre-emption involving the principle of sinker?
- Can a High Court grant relief to only one of the joint pre-emptors without examining all aspects of the case after proper application and reply?
- Muhammad Sharif Versus Muhammad Ahsan Khan1988 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of two accused for murder but commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was sustainable despite the prosecution's failure to prove motive and recovery of weapons, and whether the High Court erred in commuting the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the credibility of ocular evidence were sound and free from legal defect. The Court affirmed that the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene was consistent and reliable, justifying the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that where the motive remains unproved, it is a valid mitigating circumstance for the imposition of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal to both the convicts and the complainant, maintaining the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the motive remains unproved?
- Is the failure to prove motive a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses in the absence of legal defects?
- Din Muhammad Versus Ghulam Mustafa1988 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain Versus Muhammad Suleman1988 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a shop property. The core legal question concerned whether the Settlement Authorities retained jurisdiction to interfere and transfer a portion of the disputed shop to the petitioner after a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) had already been validly issued for the entire property in favor of the respondents, and whether the petitioner had any locus standi based on an earlier rejected form and lack of occupation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the respondents had validly applied for and been transferred the entire shop as a single unit, and that division by Rehabilitation Authorities was inconsequential for the Settlement Scheme. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that once a PTD is issued for an entire property and settlement authorities become functus officio, and where division by rehabilitation authorities does not create separate disposal units under the settlement scheme, subsequent interference by settlement authorities on the motion of a non-occupant petitioner lacks lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether Settlement Authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Does a division of property by Rehabilitation Authorities create separate units for disposal under the Settlement Scheme?
- Whether a petitioner out of possession and whose initial form was rejected has locus standi to file a revision before the Settlement Commissioner?
- Abdul Sattar Versus Naseer Ahmed1988 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents of the charge of murdering the petitioner's son. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reappraising the evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of ocular testimony and the validity of the recovery of the weapon, to grant the respondents the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence, which identified significant infirmities in the prosecution's case—including the interested nature of the witnesses and doubts surrounding the recovery of the weapon—was consistent with established principles of criminal justice. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution's case suffers from such infirmities, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must carefully scrutinize evidence in criminal cases and that acquittal is appropriate when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in acquitting an accused when the ocular testimony is found to be interested and the recovery of the weapon is doubtful?
- Does the existence of a family relationship between the complainant and the accused necessarily preclude the possibility of false implication?
- Should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities regarding the identification of the culprits and the recovery of incriminating material?
- Muhammad Din Versus Muhammad Siddique1988 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and affirming his conviction under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal question was whether the extension of the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was warranted where a sudden quarrel resulted in a single fatal knife blow, and whether a formal finding of a mutual fight was necessary. The Supreme Court held that although a sudden quarrel alone without a fight is insufficient for Exception 4, a reading of the evidence and circumstances clearly establishes that a fight immediately preceded the blow. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the conviction and sentence were properly and lawfully recorded. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a fight necessary to attract Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be legitimately inferred from the juxtaposition of prosecution evidence, the accused's plea, and attending circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be extended in the absence of a formal finding of a mutual fight?
- Does a single knife blow inflicted during a sudden quarrel warrant a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 302?
- Can the existence of a fight preceding a fatal blow be inferred from the prosecution evidence and the plea of the accused?
- Anwarul Hassan Khan Versus Ghulam Hussain1988 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence of the respondent, whose conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder was altered by the High Court to one under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the death sentence reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment based on the medical evidence showing a single injury on the thigh. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and sentence, and whether failure to award fine and compensation warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the appellate court's reduction of sentence and alteration of conviction where the medical evidence and circumstances of the case reasonably justify such a view.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the nature of the injury?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of a sentence by the High Court in the absence of strong legal justification?
- Whether the appellate court is bound to impose a fine and award compensation upon altering a conviction from murder to causing grievous hurt?
- Nabi Bakhsh Versus State1988 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing appeals against convictions under sections 302 and 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question examined by the Court was whether the murder of the deceased was committed by all three appellants in furtherance of a common intention pursuant to a pre-arranged plan, or whether the stabbing was the individual act of one appellant acting alone without a pre-concert. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention or pre-planning, noting that two appellants were empty-handed, had no motive, and that the incident occurred during a sudden and unexpected confrontation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the two co-accused charged under section 302/34, and while maintaining the conviction of the principal assailant under section 302, commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for life due to the absence of a proved motive. The key principle laid down is that common intention cannot be lightly inferred in sudden, chance encounters where co-accused lack weapons and motive, and individual culpability must be strictly distinguished from joint liability.
Questions settled- Whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be inferred in the absence of pre-concert or shared motive during a sudden, unexpected encounter?
- Does the lack of a proved motive against the principal assailant justify the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can co-accused who are empty-handed and possess no motive be held liable for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 merely on the allegation of catching hold of the deceased's arms?
- Fazal Elahi Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 2103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Versus Abdul Wahid1988 SCMR 2102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah Versus Additional District Judge1988 SCMR 2100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner, the husband, challenged the lower appellate court's decision, which had overturned the Family Court's dismissal of the wife's suit for dissolution and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the husband's favor. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in failing to order the return of a house, which the husband claimed was given in lieu of the dower amount, upon granting the Khula decree. The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court had already directed the wife to deposit the dower amount of Rs. 15,000 as zar-e-khula. Noting that the High Court had correctly identified that the value of the house was equivalent to the dower amount, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision. Consequently, the Court held that the financial adjustments made were sufficient and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the dissolution of marriage.
Questions settled- Can a husband claim the return of property given in lieu of dower upon the dissolution of marriage by Khula?
- Is a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula subject to interference if the court has already ordered the deposit of the dower amount as zar-e-khula?
- Muhammad Parvez Versus Muhammad Yusuf1988 SCMR 2099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the dissolution of marriage via Khula' granted in favour of his wife. The petitioner contended that the Khula' decree was legally flawed because the lower courts failed to record a specific finding that the parties would be unable to observe the limits of Allah, which the petitioner argued is a mandatory prerequisite for such a decree. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had explicitly addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to Khula' and had correctly applied the legal standard regarding the parties' inability to observe the limits of Allah. The High Court had also reviewed this finding and concurred with the trial court's conclusion. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the findings of fact were both legal and proper, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a specific finding regarding the parties' inability to observe the limits of Allah a necessary prerequisite for the grant of a Khula' decree?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a family dispute regarding Khula'?
- Muhammad Saffar Versus Assistant Director Social Welfare1988 SCMR 2097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The detenu, Mst. Musarrat Aftab, had been detained in Darul Aman by an Additional District Magistrate following her arrest alongside the appellant in a case under Section 294 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court, finding the detenu to be a minor and the marriage disputed, refused to release her to the alleged husband, citing the principle against furthering illicit affairs. Before the Supreme Court, the detenu expressed a desire to accompany the appellant, while her mother claimed custody. The Supreme Court held that in summary habeas corpus proceedings, it was inappropriate to adjudicate custody disputes or appoint a guardian, especially given the contested age and marriage validity. Consequently, the Court directed that the detenu remain in Darul Aman until a court of competent jurisdiction determines her custody in appropriate proceedings, thereby balancing her protection with the pending legal determination of her status and marriage.
Questions settled- Can a court determine the custody of a minor in summary habeas corpus proceedings?
- Is it appropriate for a court to release a minor to an alleged husband when the validity of the marriage is disputed?
- Should a court in habeas corpus proceedings adjudicate upon the validity of a Nikahnama?
- Rahimuddin Versus Naziruddin1988 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq Versus Rent Controller, Sialkot1988 SCMR 2095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Government of N.-W. F. P. Versus Public at Lagre1988 SCMR 2084 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the scope of the Federal Shariat Court's jurisdiction under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to declare provisions of provincial Local Government Ordinances repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Supreme Court examined whether various sections of the N.-W.F.P., Punjab, and Baluchistan Local Government Ordinances were un-Islamic for failing to mandate specific religious duties or for lacking explicit procedural protections. The Court held that the Federal Shariat Court erred in mandating amendments to provisions that were not inherently repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah. Specifically, the Court ruled that administrative bodies like the District Coordination Committee need not be representative, and that the absence of specific religious mandates (e.g., mosque maintenance) does not render a statute un-Islamic. However, the Court affirmed that where statutes lack explicit provisions for a right to a hearing, incorporating such protections is appropriate. The judgment clarifies that the Federal Shariat Court’s power to order amendments is limited to instances of clear repugnancy, not merely to improve administrative or social policy.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Shariat Court mandate amendments to a statute solely because it lacks specific provisions for religious activities like mosque maintenance?
- Does the absence of an explicit statutory provision for a right to be heard render a law repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam if administrative rules already provide for such a hearing?
- Is the District Coordination Committee under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance 1979 required to be a representative body bound by majority opinion?
- Does the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to order amendments to laws that are not inherently repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah?
- Federation of Pakistan Versus Azizullah Choudhry1988 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the decisions of the Service Tribunal which had declared the removal of the two respondents from their employment on 30 days' notice to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question was whether civil servants appointed to temporary posts of indefinite duration, who were subsequently confirmed, could have their services terminated in accordance with a contractual 30 days' notice clause without statutory protection. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents held posts of indefinite duration and were confirmed, their services attracted the constitutional protection under section 240 of the Government of India Act 1935, rendering termination by mere notice unlawful. The ratio decidendi is that a contractual clause providing for termination on short notice cannot override the statutory safeguards of section 240(3) of the Government of India Act 1935 when the employee holds a substantive appointment of indefinite duration.
Questions settled- Whether the protection given by section 240(3) of the Government of India Act 1935 extends to persons in temporary service of indefinite duration?
- Can an employment contract providing for termination on one month's notice override statutory protections against removal?
- Does a Service Tribunal's finding of fact regarding the permanent nature of an appointment warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Muhammad Ashiq Versus Muhammad Ashraf1988 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court, whereby the first respondent's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder was maintained, but his death sentence was altered to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment by the High Court was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order reducing the sentence was based on sound reasoning, and that the precedent cited by the petitioner was distinguishable on facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the alteration of the sentence. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court's reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment, when supported by sound reasoning, warrants no interference by the Supreme Court unless compelling grounds or erroneous legal principles are demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the reduction of sentence by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning?
- Ataul Haque Versus Additional District Judge, Lahore1988 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad Versus Ahmad1988 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15th January, 1980, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal upholding the dismissal of his pre-emption suit by the lower courts. The core legal question is whether a vendee who was a tenant of the disputed land at the time of sale loses his superior pre-emption right as a tenant upon acquiring ownership through the same sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition of ownership status based on the sale in question is immaterial regarding the preferential right of pre-emption, and does not confer superiority upon the pre-emptor. The crucial time for determining the superiority of a pre-emption right is the date of the sale. The key principle laid down is that a tenant-vendee retains his preferential right of pre-emption notwithstanding that the sale transforms his status to an owner, as the relevant date to assess superior right is the date of the original sale.
Questions settled- Does a tenant who purchases land cease to be a tenant for the purpose of pre-emption rights?
- What is the crucial time to determine the superiority of a right of pre-emption?
- Does the acquisition of ownership via sale destroy a vendee's preferential pre-emption right as a tenant?
- Muhammad Ameen Versus Mst. Bilqees Begum1988 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain Versus State1988 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from three petitions challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the convictions and sentences of several co-accused in a double murder and attempted murder case. The trial court had convicted the petitioners under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarding death sentences and life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court set aside the death sentences, altered the convictions to individual liabilities, and sentenced the petitioners to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted a free fight, thereby negating the right of self-defense and making each participant liable only for their individual acts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that because both parties had armed themselves in expectation of an armed conflict over disputed land and engaged in a trial of strength, the right of self-defense was excluded. The Court affirmed that in a free fight, each participant is liable for their own individual act.
Questions settled- Whether the right of private defense is available to parties who voluntarily engage in a free fight with a determination to have a trial of strength?
- How is criminal liability apportioned among participants when a clash is determined to be a case of free fight?
- Can a plea of self-defense be sustained when both parties arm themselves in full expectation of an armed conflict over a land dispute?
- Muhammad Siddique Versus Syed Hussain1988 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his second appeal in limine. The plaintiff-respondents had instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop, which the trial court and the first appellate court decreed after framing issues regarding undue influence, duress, and lack of consideration. The core legal question was whether a variance between the pleaded mode of payment of earnest money (cash versus adjustment of a partnership loan) and the proof thereof vitiated the suit for specific performance when the execution of the agreement and receipt of the amount were admitted by the defendant. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's unequivocal admission of executing the agreement and receiving the amount rendered the mode of payment immaterial, and a departure in the mode of payment did not defeat the claim for specific performance. The Court laid down that minor variances in the mode of consideration, where the execution of the agreement and receipt of funds are admitted by the promisor, do not invalidate a decree for specific performance.
Questions settled- Whether a variance between the pleaded mode of payment of consideration and the proof thereof is fatal to a suit for specific performance?
- Does an admission of the execution of an agreement to sell and receipt of consideration cure discrepancies in the pleadings regarding the mode of payment?
- Can a defendant raise a new plea regarding partnership accounts at the appellate stage when it was not made an issue at trial?
- Islam Din Versus Allah Nawaz1988 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision, effectively overturning a lower appellate court's decision to condone a delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner, a defendant in a pre-emption suit, had filed an appeal in the High Court, which was returned as incompetent, and subsequently re-filed it before the District Judge. The core legal question was whether the District Judge correctly condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the wrong forum based on a claim of bona fide mistake by counsel. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the filing of an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's error does not automatically constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that 'good faith' requires due care and attention, and where the law regarding the proper forum is clear and unambiguous, filing in the wrong court constitutes gross negligence rather than a bona fide mistake.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's error constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What is the standard for 'good faith' when seeking to exclude time for proceedings prosecuted in the wrong court under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a court condone a delay in filing an appeal if the law regarding the proper forum is plain and unambiguous?
- Aziz Versus Yousaf1988 SCMR 1999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Saifullah Khan1988 SCMR 1996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the Lahore High Court's decision regarding the President's dissolution of the National Assembly and dismissal of the Federal Cabinet on 29th May 1988. The core legal question was whether the grounds for dissolution satisfied the constitutional preconditions set forth in Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the President's grounds for dissolution lacked the necessary nexus with the constitutional requirements of Article 58(2)(b). However, despite finding the dissolution unlawful, the Court exercised its discretion to decline the consequential relief of restoring the National Assembly and the Federal Cabinet. The Court reasoned that the national interest, specifically the imminent general elections, necessitated avoiding chaos and confusion. The key principle laid down is that while the Court upholds constitutional legality, it may exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to withhold specific relief if granting it would cause greater harm to the public interest or the collective good, particularly when the nation is already committed to an electoral process.
Questions settled- Does the President's power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require a nexus between the grounds for dissolution and the constitutional preconditions?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to grant the consequential relief of restoring a dissolved assembly even after finding the dissolution to be unconstitutional?
- Does the principle of collective good and national interest allow the Court to subordinate individual or political rights in the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction?
- Riaz-Ul-Haq Versus Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur1988 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haque Versus Suleman1988 SCMR 1993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner, Abdul Haque, which was decreed by the trial court subject to the payment of the remaining sale price within a specified timeframe. Following an appeal filed by the defendants, the petitioner sought the dismissal of said appeal, which the Additional District Judge refused, directing the appeal to proceed on its merits. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition against the appellate court's refusal to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or misconstruction of the record by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, ruling that in the absence of any error of law or misappreciation of evidence, the petition for leave to appeal was not a fit case for interference.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a revision petition in limine by the High Court constitute a valid exercise of jurisdiction when no misreading of the record is established?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have not committed any error of law?
- Muhammad Afzal Versus Mir Mehrullah Khan1988 SCMR 1991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
- Wahid Khan Versus Nawab Bibi1988 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- Fayyas Akhtar Versus Hafeezur Rahroan1988 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute between an Assistant Foreman and a Workshop Supervisor in the Defence Science and Technology Organization. The core legal question concerned the determination of inter se seniority between holders of different posts in the same grade where no specific service rules existed. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal erred in applying Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act to determine pre-promotion seniority, as that provision only regulates seniority in the next grade after promotion. The Court concluded that since the appellant was already holding a grade 14 post when the respondent's post was upgraded to grade 14, the respondent could not be regarded as senior. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the respondent's departmental appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 can be used to determine the pre-promotion seniority of officers holding different posts?
- How is inter se seniority determined between employees holding different posts in the same grade in the absence of specific service rules?
- Islam-Ud-Din Versus Allah Rakha Sajid1988 SCMR 1989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- Kabir Ahmad Bukhari Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the enforcement of alleged fundamental rights. The core legal question is whether the petition discloses any violation of a fundamental right necessary to invoke the original public interest jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court held that no violation of any fundamental right was alleged or established, rendering the invocation of jurisdiction incompetent. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is incompetent and liable to be dismissed if it fails to allege or demonstrate the violation of a fundamental right.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be invoked without alleging a violation of a fundamental right?
- Noor Muhammad Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a judicial order to mandate that elections be held on the basis of proportional representation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal question of whether the judiciary possesses the authority to direct the legislature to adopt a specific electoral system and whether such a matter falls within the scope of the Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of an electoral system is a matter of legislative fiat, which lies outside the purview of judicial intervention. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the request did not pertain to the enforcement of a fundamental right, thereby rendering it outside the scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3). The judgment affirms the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary cannot compel the legislature to enact specific electoral policies or legislate in a particular manner.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court direct the legislature to adopt a system of proportional representation for elections?
- Does a request to change the electoral system fall within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
- Benazir Bhutto Versus Federation of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the restrictions placed on political parties regarding their participation in the general elections scheduled for November 16, 1988. The core legal question was whether statutory amendments that effectively excluded political parties from the electoral process, particularly regarding the allocation of election symbols, violated the fundamental right of association guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the petition, holding that Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, as amended by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinances of 1985, was unconstitutional to the extent that it failed to recognize the participation of political parties in elections. The Court declared that every political party is eligible to participate in National and Provincial Assembly elections and is entitled to the allocation of election symbols under the existing election rules. The judgment affirms the principle that legislative measures cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to form and operate political parties by denying them a meaningful role in the electoral process.
Questions settled- Does the exclusion of political parties from the electoral process violate the fundamental right of association?
- Are political parties entitled to the allocation of election symbols for National and Provincial Assembly elections?
- Is Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 unconstitutional to the extent that it ignores the role of political parties in elections?
- Muhammad Saeed Versus Abdul Hamid1988 SCMR 1985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore Versus Manzoor Hussain1988 SCMR 1984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ghaus Versus Ghazanfar Ali1988 SCMR 1983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmad Versus Muhammad Anwar Khan1988 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shafi Versus Imam Bakhsh1988 SCMR 1980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Ghauns Bakhsh Versus Budha.1988 SCMR 1979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haleem Versus Anayat Bibi1988 SCMR 1978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Haleem Versus Anayat Bibi1988 SCMR 1977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Versus Rehmat Bibi1988 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority Versus West Pakistan Drill Well Consulting Engineers & Contractors1988 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Khalida Mumtaz Versus Hamid Ali Khan1988 SCMR 1973 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed Versus Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division1988 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- Anwarud Din Akmal Versus Abdul Mateen Siddiqui1988 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Versus State1988 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Versus State1988 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two interconnected criminal petitions, one seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal and the other challenging the dismissal of a revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the respondents under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondents in the criminal appeal, while a revision petition for sentence enhancement filed by the complainant remained pending due to administrative oversights and was later disposed of as infructuous. The Supreme Court considered whether the 156-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal could be condoned on the ground of registry oversight. The Court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained for the period after certified copies were obtained, and further found that the High Court's acquittal order was fair and proper. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, establishing principles regarding the strict requirement of explaining limitation periods and the non-interference with sound acquittals.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal be condoned when no reasonable explanation is furnished for the period after obtaining certified copies?
- Whether a revision petition for enhancement of sentence becomes infructuous upon the acquittal of the respondents in the main criminal appeal?
- Abdul Malak Kiani Versus Deputy Commissioner1988 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Haidri Versus Deputy Commissioner, Jhang1988 SCMR 1968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Hussain Versus Zahoor Hussain1988 SCMR 1967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- Khair Din Versus Muhammad Afzal1988 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
- Qaim Din Versus Muhammad Hussain1988 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Hakam Ali Versus Member, Board of. Revenue1988 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Versus Muhammad Siddique1988 SCMR 1963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Abdul Rashid challenging the Lahore High Court order dated 29-8-1975 granting bail to Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sadiq in a criminal case registered under sections 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail considering the nature of the injuries and subsequent trial delay. The Supreme Court held that interference with the bail granted by the High Court was not warranted, primarily due to the considerable delay in the completion of the trial where no witness evidence had been recorded since the registration of the FIR on 13th July 1975, without any attributable fault by the respondents. The key principle laid down is that undue and unexplained delay in the commencement or completion of a trial constitutes a justified ground for declining to interfere with the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether delay in the completion of the trial justifies upholding the grant of bail?
- Is interference warranted with a High Court bail order when trial evidence has not commenced?
- M Usarrat Bibi Versus State1988 SCMR 1961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had reversed an acquittal order and convicted the petitioner, Mst. Musarrat Bibi, for the transportation of narcotics. The petitioner was apprehended on a train with 250 grams of heroin and 150 grams of opium in her possession. The core legal question was whether the conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was appropriate given the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and her background. The Supreme Court, upon review, acknowledged the argument that the petitioner did not appear to be a person engaged in trafficking narcotics. Consequently, the Court held that while the conviction stood, the ends of justice required a modification of the sentence. The Court reduced the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The principle laid down is that the status of an accused as a first-time offender is a significant mitigating factor that must be duly considered in sentencing under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
Questions settled- Does the status of a first-time offender constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining a fine in a narcotics case?
- Muhammad Nawaz Khan Versus Government of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- Juma Versus Manzoor1988 SCMR 1958 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a Railway civil servant challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his claim for a specific allowance. The petitioner sought a consolidated allowance of Rs. 350, which the Tribunal denied on the basis that the petitioner had not been formally promoted to B-16. However, the petitioner had previously successfully claimed the difference between B-15 and B-16 emoluments before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, based on the assumption that he held a post entitled to B-16 pay. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the disputed allowance despite the lack of formal promotion to B-16, given that he was previously adjudicated as entitled to the emoluments of that higher grade. The Supreme Court found that this issue warrants further examination and granted leave to appeal to determine if the entitlement to higher grade emoluments inherently includes the disputed allowance. The Court ordered the matter to be heard alongside a related appeal, thereby setting the stage for a determination on the consistency of service benefits.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to a consolidated allowance attached to a higher grade if they have already been adjudicated as entitled to the emoluments of that higher grade?
- Does the absence of a formal promotion to a specific grade bar a claim for allowances attached to that grade if the emoluments of that grade have already been granted?
- Noor Muhammad Versus Muhammad Sharif1988 SCMR 1955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
- Salim Versus Amir Nawaz Khan1988 SCMR 1954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad Versus Fateh Muhammadf1988 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Durab Khan Versus Allah Wasaya1988 SCMR 1952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by plaintiffs and pre-emptors challenging matters arising from pre-emption suits and applications. The core legal question is whether pre-emption decrees can be passed in favour of petitioners when the laws under which pre-emption was sought ceased to have effect. The Supreme Court held that since the relevant laws ceased to be effective on 31st of July, 1986, following the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, no fresh decree can now be passed in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pending pre-emption suits where no decree had been passed abate or fail upon the relevant pre-emption laws ceasing to have effect pursuant to constitutional and Shariat appellate declarations.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption decree be passed after the pre-emption laws have ceased to have effect?
- What is the effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench judgment in Malik Said Kamal Shah on pending pre-emption claims?
- Federation of Pakistan Versus Abdul Ghaffar Khan1988 SCMR 1951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from seven appeals by special leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination of services of temporary employees of the Islamabad Milk Plant after the plant was leased to a private party. The core legal question was whether the termination order passed on 27-7-1982 with retrospective effect from 31-5-1982 was void ab initio, and what relief the temporary employees were entitled to upon the abolition of their posts. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents were temporary employees whose posts came to an end on 31-5-1982 and who performed no duties thereafter, their employment stood terminated on that date, rendering the question of retroactivity irrelevant. However, acknowledging the Government's own stance under the Civil Servants Act that the employees were entitled to 14 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, holding that the respondents were only entitled to 14 days' pay in the absence of written notice. The key principle laid down is that temporary employees whose posts expire are not entitled to reinstatement with full consequential benefits merely due to a technical defect of retroactivity in a subsequent termination order, but remain entitled to statutory notice or pay in lieu thereof.
Questions settled- Can an order of termination of service of a temporary employee be invalidated solely on the ground that it was given retrospective effect?
- What is the relief available to temporary government employees whose posts come to an end upon the leasing out of a government project?
- Whether temporary employees whose posts have expired are entitled to reinstatement and full consequential benefits due to the lack of a prior written notice of termination?
- Saeed Ahmad Versus Muhammad Aslam1988 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Shah Versus Muhammad Hayat1988 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali Versus Haji1988 SCMR 1945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Azizur Rehman Versus FATA Development Corporation1988 SCMR 1944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz Versus Executive Engineer, WAPDA1988 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Versus Said Ahmad1988 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and instead convicted him under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the deceased. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the existence of a prior civil dispute and stay order regarding the property, and the validity of the plea of right of private defence of property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had thoroughly sifted the evidence, rightly discarded parts of the ocular account due to material improvements, and correctly accepted the plea of self-defence and defence of property. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down that appellate courts may properly convert a murder conviction to culpable homicide where the evidence reveals a sudden fight arising from a property dispute and the exercise of the right of private defence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in converting a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the plea of private defence?
- Can ocular testimony suffering from material improvements be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Does a property dispute and a subsisting stay order warrant the exercise of the right of private defence of property?
- Pakistan Versus State1988 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 8 of charges under section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, following their conviction by the trial court for smuggling a large quantity of charas. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court's acquittal based on alleged material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, without a proper evaluation of incriminating circumstances such as the admitted presence of the accused on the intercepted launch, the high-speed chase at sea, the massive weight of the recovered contraband, and the statutory shift of burden of proof under the Customs Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to attach due importance to vital inculpatory features and that the noted discrepancies were minor or explainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the acquittal and ordered non-bailable warrants for the appearance of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence justify the complete acquittal of accused persons in narcotics smuggling cases?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the special provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 upon the recovery of contraband from a vessel under their control?
- Whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate incriminating circumstances such as flight from law enforcement and the massive quantity of recovered contraband?
- Ijaz Hussain Versus Hussan Ara1988 SCMR 1939 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain Versus Additional District Judge, Gujranwala1988 SCMR 1937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition regarding an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to determine if the nature of the property in dispute was evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court held that once a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) had been issued by the Settlement Department in favor of the predecessor-in-interest and the property transferred, neither the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, nor the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to go behind the P.T.D. and re-examine the nature of the property. The Court established the principle that a P.T.D. issued by the competent settlement authorities is conclusive regarding title in rent proceedings, and the relationship of landlord and tenant having been established through cogent evidence, the ejectment order was validly maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to decide if the nature of a property is evacuee trust property after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued?
- Can the High Court or appellate courts go behind a Permanent Transfer Deed issued by the Settlement Department in ejectment proceedings?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed establish conclusive title for the purpose of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle-I, Lahore1988 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The appellant company manufactures stay wire sold to the Water and Power Development Authority, initially claiming exemption under a Federal Government notification issued pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Following a Central Board of Revenue clarification that stay wire is not machinery or a component thereof, the Sales Tax Officer issued reassessment notices for escaped tax. The appellant challenged the notices directly in the High Court without participating in the proceedings. The Supreme Court considered whether the Sales Tax Officer possessed jurisdiction to reopen tax liability despite an earlier assessment order granting exemption. The Court held that section 28 empowers the Sales Tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings if tax has escaped assessment or been underassessed, and affirmed that the constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court as premature, leaving the appellant to raise its defenses before the tax authorities.
Questions settled- Does the Sales Tax Officer have the jurisdiction to reopen the question of tax liability under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, despite having held the item as exempt in an earlier assessment order?
- Can an assessee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against a notice issued under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, before participating in the proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer?
- Does a change of opinion by the Sales Tax Officer preclude the initiation of proceedings for escaped assessment under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Khurshid Ahmad Versus Aminuddin1988 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- Aroo Alias Arab Versus State1988 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for abduction and Zina-bil-jabr. The appellant was originally convicted by the trial court under sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Federal Shariat Court subsequently altered the conviction for abduction to section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the grounds that the Ordinance was not in force at the time of the alleged abduction, while maintaining the conviction for Zina-bil-jabr. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence sufficiently established the charges of abduction and Zina-bil-jabr. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the abduction, which allegedly occurred eight years prior to the F.I.R., leading to the acquittal on that charge. However, the Court upheld the conviction for Zina-bil-jabr, finding that the appellant failed to prove a valid Nikah with the victim. The principle established is that a conviction for abduction cannot be sustained where the evidence is insufficient to prove the occurrence, even if the subsequent sexual relations are proven to be non-consensual.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be sustained for an act of abduction that occurred prior to the Ordinance's enforcement?
- Is a conviction for Zina-bil-jabr sustainable if the accused fails to establish a valid Nikah with the victim?
- Does the failure to prove the initial abduction invalidate a conviction for Zina-bil-jabr if the sexual relationship is otherwise proven to be non-consensual?
- Asghar Ali Versus State1988 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had dismissed his appeal against convictions under Section 10 read with Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution established that the petitioner forcefully took a minor girl into a mosque under construction, removed her clothing, laid her on the floor, and leaned on her wildly before witnesses arrived upon her shrieks. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's actions amounted to an 'attempt' to commit Zina-bil-Jabr or merely fell short of an attempt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the factual narration clearly demonstrated an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr, as the petitioner had moved beyond mere preparation to physical execution. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interfering with the conviction and sentence. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether taking off a victim's clothes and forcing her to lie down constitutes an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Does leaning wildly on a minor victim after stripping her move beyond preparation to constitute an attempt under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Muhammad Hayat Versus Bashir Ahmed1988 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
- Imrat Khan Versus Ahmad Din1988 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three civil appeals by plaintiffs arise from pre-emption cases involving a common question of law regarding court-fee valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioners had obtained pre-emption decrees prior to July 31, 1986, but were denied the benefit of these decrees by the High Court due to improper valuation of the subject-matter for court-fee jurisdiction, and in one case, due to a defect in the presentation of the plaint before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The core legal question concerned whether the principles settled in Siddique Khan's case regarding court-fee deficiencies and the conditions under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act regarding pecuniary jurisdiction applied. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the matters are covered by the precedent in Siddique Khan and that the requirements for interference regarding pecuniary jurisdiction under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act were not met, thereby setting aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and restoring the pre-emption decrees.
Questions settled- Whether pre-emption suits can be non-suited due to improper valuation of the subject-matter for court-fee jurisdiction when covered by the principles in Siddique Khan's case?
- Does the presentation of a plaint before a civil court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction invalidate the suit without satisfying the conditions of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887?
- Muhammad Aslam Versus Behram Khan.1988 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Noor Versus MBR-I1988 SCMR 1924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Nawaz Versus WAPDA1988 SCMR 1922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-02Read full judgment →
- Lutfe Ali Khan Versus Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Punjab1988 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Masih Versus State1988 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- Khan Dad Versus Khudai Mir1988 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Versus Jehan, Khan1988 SCMR 1918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- Shamim Akhtar Versus Minhajul Abidin Khan1988 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
- Pehlaj Rai Versus Khem Chand Paras Ram1988 SCMR 1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad Shah Versus Commissioner, Nasirabad1988 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order of the Commissioner, Nasirabad, setting aside the allotment of land made in favor of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner under the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Commissioner, Nasirabad division, possessed the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue, especially where counsel for the respondents conceded that the appeal before the Commissioner was incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction and the High Court's failure to give effect to that finding requires detailed examination. The key principle recognized is that an appellate authority cannot exercise jurisdiction over an order passed by an officer acting under specific delegated powers unless duly authorized by law.
Questions settled- Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue under the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972?
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on extraneous grounds after conceding that the impugned order of the lower authority was without jurisdiction?
- Quetta Development Authority Versus Ajmal Karim Butt1988 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- Nameer Ahmad Versus Tehsildar/Assistant Collector1988 SCMR 1912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →