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.
- Abdul Rahman and Another vs The State1970 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, which confirmed the convictions and death sentences imposed on the two appellants for the murder of the mother of one of the appellants. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular evidence of two close relatives who witnessed the incident, the prompt lodging of the First Information Report, and the recovery of a hatchet stained with human blood from one of the appellants. The defence contended that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by enmity and attempted to introduce a new story regarding the murder in the leave petition.
The Supreme Court held that the new version presented in the petition was an afterthought and lacked credibility. The Court determined that the ocular evidence was reliable, the FIR was lodged promptly without motivation for false implication, and the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet was untainted. Finding no valid basis to interfere with the appraisement of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether an entirely new defence version raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal can be accepted when it was not raised during trial?
- Whether the testimony of a primary eyewitness can be discredited merely because a secondary witness observed her leaving and returning to the spot after the incident?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon can be relied upon when one of the recovery witnesses is connected to the complainant party, provided there is no evidence of fabrication?
- Abdul Manna N vs Safuran Nessa1970 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order of the High Court of East Pakistan which had dismissed his criminal revision against a magistrate's order granting maintenance to his wife and child under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an alleged divorce claimed by the petitioner was legally effective to terminate the marriage and relieve him of maintenance obligations when mandatory notice had not been given to the Chairman. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a notice given to the Chairman of the Local Union Council under section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, the divorce had not become effective pursuant to subsection (3) of section 7. The Court laid down the principle that a divorce remains ineffective until the statutory requirement of notice under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 is fulfilled. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an alleged divorce become effective without giving notice to the Chairman under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Is a husband liable to pay maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the marriage has not been legally dissolved through effective divorce?
- Abdul Majid vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 6 Other1970 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition that challenged certain orders passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. The core legal question raised in the review petition concerned the proper interpretation of the substantive part of section 2 (12) along with its two provisos. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the contention urging an alternative interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions merely amounts to a plea that another interpretation was possible, which does not furnish any valid ground for review of a judgment. The key principle laid down is that a mere possibility of an alternative interpretation of statutory provisions does not constitute a sufficient ground for granting a review of a judicial decision.
Questions settled- Does a plea that an alternative interpretation of a statutory provision was possible furnish a valid ground for review?
- Whether the interpretation of section 2(12) of the relevant statute can be reopened through a review petition on the mere ground of a preferred alternative construction?
- Abdul Latif vs Jamal Din1970 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for withdrawal filed by the Attorney for the appellant in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, citing a lack of cooperation from both the client and the engaged counsel regarding the preparation of the concise statement. The Court addressed the procedural failure to progress the case despite multiple adjournments. Consequently, the Court ordered that a notice be issued to the appellant to show cause why the leave to appeal previously granted should not be rescinded and the petition dismissed for non-prosecution. Furthermore, the Court directed the engaged counsel to appear and provide an explanation for the failure to prepare the requisite concise statement. As an immediate consequence of the lack of prosecution, the Court vacated the stay order that had been previously granted in favor of the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel fails to prepare a concise statement?
- Does the failure of a client and counsel to cooperate in case preparation justify the rescission of leave to appeal?
- Can a stay order be vacated by the Court due to the appellant's failure to prosecute the case?
- Abdul Khaliq vs The State1970 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan confirming the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Abdul Mannan and his sentence of death, along with a conviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the incriminating evidence and circumstances available in the case constituted sufficient corroboration in material particulars of the testimony of the approver regarding the complicity of the appellant in the murder. The Supreme Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may legally form the basis of a conviction, though a rule of prudence requires independent corroboration on material points linking the accused to the crime. Finding that the approver's testimony was adequately corroborated not only by the recovery of blood-stained articles and weapons at the instance of the accused but also by corresponding cut injuries found on the hands of both the approver and the appellant, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The key principle laid down is that the corroboration of an accomplice's testimony need not cover every detail of the crime, but must provide independent support on material particulars implicating the accused, the sufficiency of which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Questions settled- Can the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice form the basis of a criminal conviction under Pakistani law?
- What is the extent and nature of corroboration required for an approver's testimony to safely sustain a conviction?
- Whether the recovery of incriminating articles and injuries on the accused's person constitute sufficient corroboration in material particulars of an accomplice's evidence?
- Abdul Khaliq Khan Barki vs Manzoor Elahi, C. vs. P., Chief Settlement1970 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal regarding a dispute over a garden. The petitioner sought to re-open the matter, arguing that his entitlement to the property remained pending before the Central Government and that, per the precedent in Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Fateh Muhammad, the requirement for proof of entitlement via special jamabandi under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme could be relaxed in favor of collateral evidence. The Court held that no error was disclosed in the impugned order to justify a review. The Court clarified that if the petitioner's claim remained pending before the Central Government, he was at liberty to pursue that remedy directly with the Government, which possessed the discretion to determine the adequacy of proof. If the petitioner secured a favorable determination from the Government, he could subsequently approach the Settlement Authorities. Finding no substance in the arguments presented, the Court dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained if no error is disclosed in the impugned order?
- Does the Central Government have the discretion to determine the adequacy of proof for property entitlement claims?
- Can a petitioner approach Settlement Authorities again after obtaining a favorable order from the Central Government?
- Abdul Khaliq Bangash vs The Secretary, Government of West1970 SC M R103 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of West Pakistan, which had challenged the legality of a departmental inquiry and an order of suspension from service. The petitioner, an Inspector in the Co-operative Department, faced departmental proceedings following criminal charges of embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's initial suspension, prior to its formal validation by the competent authority, was unlawful and whether such a grievance could be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the order of suspension does not constitute a penalty and does not violate any vested legal right of the officer. The Court affirmed that even if an initial suspension order was procedurally irregular, a claim for unpaid salary arrears arising from that period cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that suspension is a temporary measure pending inquiry, and if a public servant is exonerated, they may be reinstated with full salary arrears, but the suspension itself is not a justiciable cause of action for a writ petition.
Questions settled- Can a claim for unpaid salary arrears during a period of suspension be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
- Does an order of suspension from service constitute a penalty that violates a vested legal right?
- Is a public servant entitled to reinstatement and salary arrears if exonerated in a departmental inquiry?
- Abdul Karim Butt vs The Crown1970 P Cr. LJ 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1955-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Chief Court of Sind dismissing an application filed by the appellant, a bank sub-manager, seeking to expunge disparaging remarks made against him by an Additional City Magistrate in a discharge order. The appellant contended that these remarks, which questioned his integrity, were unjustified and had jeopardized his employment, as his employer bank demanded he vindicate his honor. The Chief Court had dismissed the application solely on the ground of inordinate delay. The Supreme Court addressed whether such an application should be dismissed on procedural grounds of delay when the applicant's livelihood is directly impacted by judicial observations. The Court held that the dismissal was improper and that the appellant was entitled to a hearing on the merits to determine if the remarks were justified. The Court emphasized that third parties, such as employers, are not bound by judicial remarks and should exercise independent judgment; however, given the professional consequences faced by the appellant, the Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an application to expunge judicial remarks be dismissed solely on the ground of delay when the applicant's professional standing is at stake?
- Are third parties, such as employers, bound by judicial remarks made against an individual in a criminal proceeding?
- Does a person have a right to be heard on the merits regarding judicial remarks that adversely affect their professional employment?
- Abdul Hanan and 8 Others vs Kapoor Khan and 16 Other1970 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether a redemption suit for a 3/5th share of land was barred by limitation. The concurrent findings of the lower courts established that the mortgage took effect on 19-2-1899 when mutation No. 44 was attested based on statements by the mortgagor's sons, making the suit filed on 19-2-1959 within the sixty-year limitation period. The appellants contended that limitation began earlier on 1-11-1897, relying on a Patwari's report regarding Girdawari. The Supreme Court held that the Patwari's report alone did not constitute evidence of a completed mortgage transaction, as the original transaction remained inchoate until the mutation was attested in 1899 following the mortgagor's death. Consequently, the suit for redemption was filed within time. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that limitation for redemption runs from the date the mortgage officially takes effect through proper attestation rather than prior inchoate entries.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for redemption of mortgaged land is barred by time if filed within sixty years from the date of attestation of mutation?
- Does a Patwari's report regarding Girdawari constitute sufficient evidence of the creation of a mortgage for the purpose of computing limitation?
- When does limitation start to run for a redemption suit where the initial mortgage transaction remained inchoate prior to formal mutation?
- Abdul Hamid vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 Other1970 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the horizontal division of a composite property by the Settlement authorities. The property, consisting of two floors, was occupied by members of a single family. The Settlement authorities transferred the first floor jointly to the petitioner and his brother, and the ground floor to the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether a joint transfer of property to two brothers without their explicit request was legal, and whether the petitioner could raise this contention for the first time before the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding the joint transfer was not raised before the Settlement authorities despite available opportunity, and that the division between family members was substantially just. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that pleas not raised before lower forums cannot ordinarily be entertained.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding joint transfer for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the Settlement authorities?
- Whether the horizontal division of a composite property among family members by Settlement authorities warrants interference under special leave to appeal?
- Abdul Ghani vs Muzaffar Hussain1970 SCMR 661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a vendee in two pre-emption suits based on separate mutations, raised a plea that the sale constituted a single transaction and that the mutations were incorrect. The trial court framed an issue placing the onus regarding this plea on the petitioner, and subsequently refused the petitioner's prayer to re-frame the issue. The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order in revision, leading to the present petition for special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the issue framed by the trial court regarding the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner asserted a single transaction contrary to the two existing mutations, no legitimate exception could be taken to the issue as framed, and the matter of whether the sale was single or multiple would be determined by the trial court based on evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party asserting that multiple mutations represent a single transaction bears the burden of establishing the same through an appropriately framed issue?
- Will the High Court interfere in revision with the trial court's discretionary framing of issues where no legitimate exception arises?
- How is the question of whether a sale transaction is single or multiple determined in a pre-emption suit?
- Abdul Basit vs Cantt and Another1970 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for allegedly contracting a second marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council. The core legal question was whether the criminal proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, constituted an abuse of the process of the court, given that the petitioner's second marriage occurred after his first marriage had been legally dissolved. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were indeed an abuse of process, noting that the second marriage was contracted after the divorce became effective, as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Furthermore, the Court observed that the three-year delay in filing the second complaint, following the dismissal of the first, suggested personal vindictiveness rather than a pursuit of justice. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the pending criminal proceedings, establishing the principle that courts should exercise their inherent powers to prevent the abuse of legal process where complaints are filed without merit or for ulterior motives.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Does a second marriage contracted after the legal dissolution of a first marriage constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Is a delay of three years in filing a criminal complaint a relevant factor in determining whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process?
- Abdul Aziz and 2 Others vs Sadiq Muhammad and 9 Other1970 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of 200 kanals of land originally allotted to one Muhammad Hayat under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The petitioners, claiming through their predecessor Sultan, alleged an oral agreement for the transfer of this land from Hayat, supported by a Collector's sanction obtained in 1945. However, Hayat subsequently transferred the land via a registered deed to a third party, Attaullah, who later sold it to the respondents. The respondents successfully challenged the petitioners' claim in a civil suit, which was upheld through the appellate hierarchy. The core legal question was whether an alleged oral agreement and a mere sanction for alienation, without a completed transfer of title, could supersede a subsequent registered sale deed executed with proper authority. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the oral agreement or a completed transaction. The Court ruled that the mere deposit of money and the grant of sanction did not confer title, and the subsequent registered transfer to the respondents was valid, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Does the mere grant of sanction by a Collector for land alienation under the Colonization of Government Lands Act create a valid title in the absence of a completed transfer?
- Can an alleged oral agreement for land transfer supersede a subsequent registered sale deed executed with the required statutory sanction?
- Does the deposit of sale price by a prospective transferee, without a completed transaction, confer ownership rights over government-allotted land?
- A. F. M. Abdul Hai Jamally vs The State1970 SCMR 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, a former Circle Officer, under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the dishonest misappropriation of Red Cross garments entrusted to him for free distribution in flood-affected areas. The core legal question was whether the misappropriation was established when the specific seized goods were allegedly not identified as the exact items entrusted. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded, ruling that entrustment was admitted, the defense of distribution was proven false through fabricated duplicate muster rolls and false certificates, and proof that the public servant disposed of the entrusted property in violation of directions sufficiently establishes the offence of criminal misconduct and breach of trust. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether misappropriation of entrusted property by a public servant is established when the property is disposed of in violation of directions?
- Does the creation of false duplicate muster rolls support a charge of criminal misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-distribution of relief goods?