Latest Judgments

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

• Azizur Rehman Versus State1988 SCMR 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-25Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Ghulam Akbar Bhutto1988 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-30
  civil servantreversionservice tribunalpublic interestmala fidepolitical influenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution challenged the judgment of the Service Tribunal setting aside the reversion of the respondent from Grade-19 to Grade-18 under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act. The core legal questions examined were whether the exercise of power by the President or his nominee under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on the ground of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest, and whether the powers reserved under Section 12-A could be invoked in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that orders passed under Section 12-A are reviewable by the Service Tribunal only on limited grounds such as coram non judice, mala fide in fact, or mala fide in law. The Court found that the respondent's Grade-19 appointment was tainted by political influence and intervention from an extraneous non-statutory authority, and the Service Tribunal erred in condoning these irregularities. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Service Tribunal's order, and dismissed the respondent's departmental appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether exercise of power by the President or his nominee under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act is reviewable by the Service Tribunal on the ground of non-existence or insufficiency of public interest?
  • Whether powers reserved under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act could be invoked in cases of appointments made under political influence?
  • On what specific grounds can an order passed under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act be reviewed by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali Shah Versus Munawar1988 SCMR 1197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Ghulam Mahboob1988 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13
  evacuee propertycompensation poolsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertyspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of an ahata measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas in Tehsil Faisalabad, originally classified as evacuee property. The respondent purchased the property from Settlement authorities in 1964. However, the Provincial Government claimed ownership based on an earlier mutation from 1963, asserting that the property had been acquired through an exchange of State land with evacuee property and thus did not form part of the compensation pool. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring him the owner. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal, arguing that the Central Government had sanctioned the acquisition of this property by the Province prior to its inclusion in the compensation pool, rendering the Settlement authorities incompetent to transfer it. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the Provincial Government required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the validity of the transfer and the status of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether property sanctioned for acquisition by the Provincial Government from the Central Government can be legally transferred by Settlement authorities as part of the compensation pool?
  • Does the prior mutation of evacuee property in favor of the Provincial Government preclude its subsequent transfer to a private party by Settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Dogar Versus Muhammad Shafi1988 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05
  pre-emption suitzar-e-punjamextension of timeprocedural fairnessorder of remandservice of summonsspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner was initially ordered to deposit zar-e-punjam by a specific date. Before that deadline, the petitioner applied to furnish security instead of cash; the trial court rejected this but extended the time for the cash deposit, which the petitioner complied with. The respondents challenged the suit's maintainability in the appellate courts, arguing the failure to deposit within the original timeframe necessitated dismissal. The High Court remanded the matter, directing the trial court to re-examine whether the extension of time was validly granted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address the core legal question: whether a civil court possesses the authority under the Punjab Pre-emption Act to extend the time for depositing zar-e-punjam without providing notice to the defendant, particularly when the defendant has not yet been served. The Court noted this as a matter of first impression, suspended the High Court's remand order, and granted leave to consider the scope of judicial discretion regarding procedural compliance in pre-emption litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have the power to extend the time for depositing zar-e-punjam under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Can a trial court validly extend the time for a pre-emptor to deposit zar-e-punjam without issuing notice to the defendant if the defendant has not yet been served?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Din Versus Maqbul Ahmad Sheikh1988 SCMR 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammadanwar Versus Arshad Jillani1988 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Alias Najji Versus State1988 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mangoo Khan Versus Abdul Malik,1988 SCMR 1188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Mast Khan Versus Muhammad Dyar Khan1988 SCMR 1186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  landlord and tenantevictiondefence struck offrelationship of landlord and tenantconstitutional petitionrent controllerjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his Constitutional Petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller could lawfully strike off the tenant's defence and simultaneously pass an ejectment order without an express, lawful determination on the preliminary issue regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that striking off the tenant's defence and ordering ejectment without a specific decision on jurisdiction and the preliminary issue of tenancy was done without lawful authority and jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, the appellate court, and the High Court, and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller for decision in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller cannot strike off a tenant's defence or order ejectment without first properly deciding the jurisdictional question of the relationship of landlord and tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence without a specific decision on the preliminary issue regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Whether an ejectment order can be passed against a tenant without a lawful determination of the landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhi Versus Election Tribunal1988 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inam Versus Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd1988 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus Lal Din1988 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-18
  evacuee propertymortgagee rightscompensation for improvementslimitation periodwrit jurisdictionsettlement department press note
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding a claim for compensation for improvements made to mortgaged evacuee land. The petitioners, successors to an original mortgagee, sought both the recovery of mortgage money and compensation for improvements after the land was allotted to respondents under settlement operations. The Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Settlement Commissioner had granted the mortgage money but denied the compensation claim, citing a lack of declaration from the Custodian under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, primarily noting an unexplained, gross delay in filing the application for compensation. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court held that the petitioners failed to adhere to the mandatory deadline established by the Settlement Department's Press Note dated 6 December 1962, which required all claims for mortgage money and compensation for improvements on evacuee land to be submitted by 31 January 1963. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference, affirming that claims not filed within the prescribed limitation period are time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mortgagee of evacuee land claim compensation for improvements after the prescribed deadline set by the Settlement Department?
  • Does an unexplained delay in filing an application for compensation for improvements on evacuee land justify the dismissal of a writ petition?
  • Is a claim for compensation for improvements on evacuee land maintainable if the applicant failed to comply with the deadline stipulated in the Press Note of 6 December 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Versus Sultan Mahmood1988 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Ali Asghar Khan1988 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-19
  civil servantService Tribunal jurisdictionpopulation planningregularizationdismissal from servicenatural justicenon-obstante clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal, brought by the Federation of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, examined whether the respondent, a former employee of the Population Planning Programme, had ceased to be a civil servant following the promulgation of the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance 1981, thereby stripping the Service Tribunal of jurisdiction to entertain his appeal against dismissal. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of the non-obstante and deeming clauses in sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance, employees who were not recommended for regular absorption by the Federal Public Service Commission ceased to be civil servants, regardless of their prior status. Consequently, the Federal Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's appeal. The key principle laid down is that special statutory provisions governing reorganization and regularization under the 1981 Ordinance override previous civil servant status, and non-civil servant government employees are only entitled to the observance of principles of natural justice rather than strict statutory civil service disciplinary rules. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's judgment set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance 1981 alter the status of employees such that those not recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission cease to be civil servants?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by employees of the Population Planning Programme who do not qualify as civil servants under the 1981 Ordinance?
  • What procedural protections are available to a government employee who has ceased to be a civil servant during departmental dismissal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Khan Versus Murtaza Khan1988 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-27
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptioncontiguityKhasra numbervicinageagricultural landcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a pre-emption suit where the respondents sought to pre-empt a sale of land comprising multiple Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor can claim a superior right of pre-emption over an entire block of land based on contiguity when their land is adjacent to only one Khasra number, while other Khasra numbers in the sale are physically separated by intervening land owned by third parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied the principle established in Said Karim Shah v. Taj Muhammad. While a sale of multiple Khasra numbers generally constitutes a single property for pre-emption purposes, the right of pre-emption based on contiguity is not absolute. The Court affirmed the principle that a pre-emptor cannot claim contiguity over a Khasra number that is physically separated from their land by intervening property owned by others, as the ring fence of contiguity is broken. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the appellate court’s decision, holding that the test of contiguity was not satisfied for the separated Khasra number.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of a parcel of land comprised in multiple Khasra numbers constitute a single property for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • Is a pre-emptor entitled to pre-empt an entire block of land if their land is contiguous to only one of the Khasra numbers within that block?
  • Does the right of pre-emption based on contiguity apply to a Khasra number that is physically separated from the pre-emptor's land by intervening land owned by others?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Versus State1988 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
• Naeem Engineering Corporation Versus Government of the Punjab1988 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Christian Educational Endowment Trust, Lahore1988 SCMR 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-19
  civil reviewtrust propertynatural justiceaudi alteram partemmisreading of judgmenttransfer of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed by the Province of Punjab against the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated 13-5-1987. The petitioner's main grievance was that the judgment had inadvertently declared illegal not only the transfer of land belonging to the respondent Christian Educational Endowment Trust, but also mutations concerning another parcel of land standing in the name of the Board of Foreign Missions, which was the subject-matter of separate litigation before a Civil Judge. The core question was whether the previous judgment had erroneously adjudicated upon property not forming part of the respondent-Trust's ownership. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the grievance was based on an entire misconception and misreading of the judgment. The Court clarified that its earlier ruling was strictly confined to the 335 kanals 12 marlas and 167 sq. ft. owned by the Christian Educational Endowment Trust, which was transferred without affording a hearing in violation of natural justice, and left unaffected any other land parcels or pending civil suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a review petition lie on the ground that the judgment overlooked certain parcels of land?
  • Whether an order transferring trust property without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does a judgment declaring a memorandum void regarding a specific trust property affect separate parcels of land under different ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Behram Khan Versus Military Estate Officer1988 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-23
  land acquisitionlimitation condonationlocus standiright of appealcompensation enhancementMilitary Estate OfficerPakistan Ordnance Factorycross-objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning land acquisition compensation. Before addressing the merits, the Supreme Court condoned a minor delay in filing the direct appeals under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, following earlier precedent due to procedural ambiguity. The primary legal issue was whether the Central Government or the Military Estate Officer had locus standi to appeal to the High Court against a Senior Civil Judge's enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Reaffirming the principle laid down in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer (PLD 1987 SC 485), the Supreme Court held that since local authorities, companies, and the Central Government lack statutory standing to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, they possess no implied right of appeal against the Civil Court's determination. Furthermore, Section 22-A inserted by the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance 1969 did not confer an appeal right on the Central Government or Pakistan Ordnance Factory. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Central Government or a beneficiary entity have the locus standi to file an appeal against a Civil Court's judgment enhancing land acquisition compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a right of appeal be inferred on a priori grounds without an express statutory provision conferring such a right?
  • Whether Section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 grants the Central Government or a non-company project the right to file cross-objections or subsequent appeals against land acquisition awards?
  Read full judgment →
• Chhaju Khan Versus Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala1988 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-18
  displaced persons land settlementremand orderaudi alteram partemcondemned unheardconstitutional petitionwrong forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition and set aside an order of remand passed by a Settlement Revisional Authority in a displaced persons land settlement matter. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the remand order where the appellants, who were in possession of the disputed land and had submitted prior transfer applications before the wrong settlement forum, were condemned unheard and their claims were not considered on merits prior to allotment of the land to the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be penalized for submitting applications to the wrong forum due to a mutual misapprehension of the land's status, that they had a valid right of hearing and competition for the transfer, and that the remand order was legally justified. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the remand order was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment order can be sustained when the occupants of the land submitted transfer applications to the wrong forum due to a bona fide misapprehension of the land status?
  • Can a party be penalized for filing transfer applications on wrong forms or before the urban settlement authorities instead of land settlement authorities?
  • Whether a remand order passed by a Settlement Commissioner on the ground of denial of a hearing can be set aside as a futile exercise without examining the merits of the applicant's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Versus Abdul Hamid1988 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus Qasim Ali Shah1988 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16
  leave to appealvicarious liabilityacquittaldeath sentencereappraisal of evidencecommon objectcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three separate petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that modified convictions and sentences in a murder case. The trial court had convicted five accused persons under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted one accused, Qasim Ali, citing his old age as a basis for doubt despite acknowledging his presence, reduced the death sentence of another to life imprisonment on the grounds of family honour, and acquitted the remaining accused of charges under sections 148 and 149. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in all three petitions filed by the complainant, the State, and the convicts. The Court determined that the entire evidence required reappraisal to address the validity of the High Court's findings regarding the acquittal of Qasim Ali, the reduction of the death sentence, and the application of vicarious liability provisions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of these modifications and the sufficiency of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court acquit an accused on the basis of old age despite finding them present at the scene of the crime?
  • Is the motivation of vindicating family honour a valid legal ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the acquittal of one accused in a case involving sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate the acquittal of others on those same charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Versus State1988 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Versus Hamid Khan1988 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13
  Conciliation Court jurisdictionArbitration Actspecific performancewritten contractnullity of proceedingsaward enforcementpleadings consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute initially brought before a Conciliation Court regarding a monetary claim for land. The Conciliation Court referred the matter to a third party who issued a document described as an 'award'. The respondent subsequently filed a suit for specific performance of this award, which the appellant contested as barred under the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal questions were whether the Conciliation Court possessed jurisdiction over the dispute and whether the document in question constituted an 'award' or an 'agreement of sale'. The Supreme Court held that the Conciliation Court lacked jurisdiction because the underlying claim was not based on a written contract, rendering the proceedings a nullity. Furthermore, the Court determined that the document was an award, not an agreement of sale, and therefore the suit for its enforcement was barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The principle established is that Conciliation Courts only have jurisdiction over written contracts, and parties cannot re-characterize documents on appeal to circumvent statutory bars when their pleadings consistently treated the document as an award.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Conciliation Courts Ordinance 1961 confer jurisdiction on Conciliation Courts to adjudicate disputes arising from oral contracts?
  • Can a party, on appeal, re-characterize a document as an agreement of sale when the suit was originally filed for the specific performance of an award?
  • Is a suit for the enforcement of an award barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940 if the validity of the award is contested?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1988 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Kamal Din1988 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20
  acquittalprivate defenceright of private defenceleave to appealmurdercivil disputepossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which acquittal had been maintained by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved whether the respondents were rightly acquitted based on the plea of private defence of person and property. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly accepted the defence version that the accused acted in exercise of their right of private defence against a raiding party attempting to take forcible possession of a disputed Ihata, and that the respondents had not exceeded their right of private defence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an accused party establishes a genuine apprehension of danger to life and property from a raiding party, retaliatory firing to repel the attack without exceeding the bounds of self-defence justifies an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the accused are entitled to the right of private defence when repelling a raiding party attempting to take forcible possession of property?
  • Can an acquittal upheld by the High Court be interfered with by the Supreme Court when the plea of self-defence is reasonably established?
  • Does the mere fact that two persons were killed and one injured necessarily imply that the right of private defence was exceeded?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Versus Ahmad Bakhs'mukhtar Ahmad Nazir Ahmad1988 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02
  leave to appealalteration of convictionreduction of sentencepari-cidecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mukhtar Ahmad against a judgment of the High Court dated 17-11-1985, which had altered the conviction of the respondent Nazir Ahmad from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to Section 304-I and reduced his sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the killing of his father. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for altering the conviction and reducing the sentence were sound and that the case was not a fit one for interference. The Supreme Court accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the apex court will not interfere with well-reasoned High Court judgments altering convictions and sentences based on proper appreciation of circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of sentence by the High Court when the reasons recorded are found to be sound?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1988 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-12
  leave to appealacquittaleye-witness testimonychance witnessrecovery evidencecriminal justice administrationforensic delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondent for the murder of two individuals, relying on eye-witness testimony and recovery evidence. The High Court, however, overturned the conviction, citing doubts regarding the reliability of the recovery evidence due to police delay in forensic submission and disbelieving the eye-witnesses as chance witnesses. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court’s assessment of the eye-witnesses was sound, specifically regarding their presence at the crime scene in the absence of prior enmity. The Court further seeks to examine whether the rejection of this testimony and the reliance on the police's procedural negligence regarding forensic evidence aligned with the well-established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The matter is set for further review to resolve these evidentiary and procedural concerns.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of previous enmity between parties enhance the credibility of eye-witnesses who are otherwise classified as chance witnesses?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be disregarded solely on the basis of their classification as chance witnesses when a plausible explanation for their presence is provided?
  • To what extent does a delay by police in submitting crime empties and a weapon to a forensic expert invalidate the recovery evidence in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khalid Versus Government of Punjab1988 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20
  public interest litigationland disputelocus standicommunity landschool constructionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the use of a plot of land, Khasra No. 8277 in Kot Pucca Qilla, Kasur, which has been utilized for the construction of a girls' primary school. The petitioners, a group of twenty residents, challenged the construction, asserting that the plot was unsuitable for a school and had historically been used by the community as a funeral/gathering place and for parking vehicles. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could successfully challenge the public utility project despite the lack of exclusive individual possession and the fact that the project was undertaken with the approval of the majority of the local residents. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to establish exclusive possession or a unique individual right, and given that the school was constructed with the support of the majority of the village inhabitants, the petition lacked merit. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere in such public interest matters where the project serves the broader community.

  Questions settled

  • Can residents challenge the construction of a public school on village land without proving exclusive individual possession?
  • Does the approval of a majority of residents for a public utility project preclude a minority from challenging it in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Versus Superintending Engineer1988 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16
  interim reliefirrigation outletspecial leave to appealirreparable losscivil suitadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging an administrative decision by a Superintending Engineer. The petitioner had filed a civil suit contesting the legality of an order permitting a respondent to share an irrigation outlet previously used exclusively by the petitioner. Alongside the suit, the petitioner sought interim relief to suspend the Superintending Engineer's order. The trial court dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the existing water supply was sufficient for both parties, thereby concluding that the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss or inconvenience. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to displace the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts regarding the sufficiency of water and the lack of irreparable harm. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sufficiency of water supply preclude a finding of irreparable loss in a suit challenging an irrigation outlet sharing order?
  • Can a petitioner obtain interim relief against an administrative order if they cannot demonstrate irreparable loss or inconvenience?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Versus Muhammad Aslam1988 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02
  criminal petitionenhancement of sentenceacquittalculpable homicideappraisal of evidencespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal (PSLA) filed by Shaukat Ali against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his revision petitions seeking enhancement of sentence for one respondent and challenging the acquittal of five co-accused in a murder case. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Aslam under Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting the other five respondents. The core legal questions were whether the conviction of Muhammad Aslam should be altered to Section 304-I and whether the acquittal of the co-accused warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction might technically fall under Section 304-I, the ten-year sentence imposed was adequate, rendering an alteration of the conviction unnecessary. Regarding the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court found no flaw in the High Court's appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, establishing the principle that leave to appeal will not be granted solely to alter a conviction section when the existing sentence remains appropriate in the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to alter a conviction section if the sentence awarded is already adequate?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment where the High Court's appraisal of evidence is sound?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Zulfiqar Ali1988 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealmitigating circumstancesentence reductiondeath sentenceprovocationmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained the conviction of the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, alongside altering another conviction, relying on previous provocation where the deceased had slapped the respondent six days prior to the incident. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the prior slap constituted a valid mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life in a premeditated murder. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the reasons given for the mitigating circumstance were proper and cogent in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the adequacy and legality of mitigating circumstances relied upon for awarding a lesser penalty in capital punishment cases remain subject to strict judicial scrutiny by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether previous slaps given to an accused days prior to an incident constitute a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Did the High Court commit a miscarriage of justice by altering the death penalty based on provocation that was remote in time?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus Baggu1988 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-29
  petition for leave to appealacquittalself-defencefree fightcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which acquitted respondents 1 to 10 of charges under sections 302, 307, 149, 148, 324, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents, finding the occurrence to be a free fight, but the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the respondents had acted in the exercise of their right of self-defence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the right of self-defence and the acquittal of the respondents warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view that the incident involved self-defence was probable and not perverse, and therefore declined to interfere with the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's finding of self-defence, if based on cogent reasons and a plausible view of the evidence, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the right of self-defence when the High Court's view is probable and not perverse?
  • Does the presence of injuries on both sides support a plea of self-defence in a criminal altercation?
  • How are testimonies of close relatives who are also injured witnesses evaluated in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus State1988 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-20
  leave to appealacquittaldismissal for non-prosecutionlegal assistancemisleading pro forma
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, challenging the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Hafeez. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core issue of whether the petitioner could substantiate the grounds for leave to appeal. Upon review, the Court observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner had prepared a misleading pro forma, which rendered the counsel unable to effectively argue the case before the bench. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition due to a lack of assistance from the petitioner's counsel. The judgment reinforces the principle that it is the duty of the legal counsel to provide adequate and accurate assistance to the Court, and failure to do so, particularly through the submission of misleading documentation, justifies the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the petitioner's counsel fails to provide adequate assistance to the Court?
  • What is the consequence of submitting a misleading pro forma in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh Versus State1988 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
• State Versus Rashid Ahmad1988 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-16
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirybail cancellationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Peshawar High Court whereby the respondent, charged under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, was granted post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on an oath taken on the Holy Quran by the accused party proclaiming innocence. The core legal question was the propriety of granting bail under section 497(2) without the prerequisite finding that there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail merely on the basis of an oath without recording the necessary finding for further inquiry. However, considering the lapse of time since the occurrence in 1985 and the likelihood of the trial having progressed or concluding soon, the Court declined to cancel the bail and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the release on grounds other than those given by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a definite finding by the court that no reasonable grounds exist for believing the accused committed the non-bailable offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the offence?
  • Does an oath taken on the Holy Quran proclaiming innocence constitute a valid legal ground for granting bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Will the Supreme Court set aside an improper bail order where considerable time has passed and the trial is likely concluded or about to commence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Versus Anwar Shah1988 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04
  murderacquittalconcurrent findingscounter-reportadmissibility of evidenceleave to appealocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent acquittal of two respondents, Syed Anwar Shah and Syed Mubarak Shah, who were tried for the murder of Muhammad Umar. The core legal question concerned the credibility of the ocular testimony and the admissibility and evidentiary value of a counter-report lodged by the accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the untrustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses were well-founded, and further held that the counter-report was not legally admissible in evidence to establish the presence of the deceased at the scene without formal proof, which the prosecution failed to secure during the trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on the credibility of witnesses by lower courts will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse, and a counter-report cannot be used as substantive evidence of facts stated therein unless duly proved in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of acquittal by the lower courts based on the credibility of witnesses can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a counter-report lodged at the police station be used as substantive evidence without being formally proved during the trial?
  • Whether additional evidence can be allowed at the Supreme Court stage to prove a document when the party failed to avail the opportunity at earlier stages?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasal Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonyinterested witnessescorroborationmedical evidencefirearms expertbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arose from the conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether sufficient and reliable corroboration was available for the ocular testimony of interested witnesses in the background of deep-rooted enmity and cross-cases, and whether the medical evidence and recoveries contradicted their testimony. The Supreme Court held that in view of the serious enmity, past murders, and improper handling of evidence by the investigating officer—specifically the failure to send all recovered crime empties to the firearms expert—the interested testimony of the eyewitnesses did not receive the necessary independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants, allowed the appeal, set aside their convictions and sentences, and ordered their immediate release, laying down that an investigating officer must conduct investigations with an open mind and submit all crucial material evidence for forensic evaluation in cases involving interested witnesses and deep enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration in cases involving deep-rooted enmity and cross-cases?
  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to send recovered crime empties to a firearms expert weaken the prosecution case?
  • Can mere abscondence and medical evidence of a generalized nature serve as sufficient corroboration for the conviction of appellants under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus Khanzada Khan1988 SCMR 1122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11
  criminal revisionterritorial jurisdictionbreach of peaceattachment of landrevisional powersdemarcation commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court in criminal revision proceedings concerning a land dispute and apprehension of a breach of the peace. The core legal question was whether the High Court could constitute an independent body or commission of notables outside the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to adjudicate and decide the question of territorial jurisdiction regarding the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and the High Court acted beyond the ambit of the law by setting up a parallel forum and interfering with a well-reasoned finding of the Magistrate based on oral and documentary evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Magistrate was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court could constitute an independent body for adjudication of territorial jurisdiction outside the provisions of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of revisional powers exercisable by the High Court under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court set up a forum other than the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to decide a dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Muhammad Siddique1988 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13
  murderself-defencejoint propertyco-sharersacquittalleave to appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of murder charges and dismissed revisions for enhancement of sentence and against acquittal. The core legal question involved the evaluation of the plea of self-defence in a dispute arising from the construction of a boundary wall over jointly owned land by co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions arrived at by the High Court regarding the appreciation of evidence were reasonable, noting that no co-sharer has the right to appropriate exclusive possession of specific parts of joint property without consent, and that the respondents were justified in defending their possession given the circumstances and injuries sustained. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, laying down that co-sharers have a right to defend their possession against unilateral exclusive appropriations of joint property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a co-sharer has the right to appropriate for exclusive possession a specific part of joint property without the consent of other co-sharers?
  • Does a co-sharer have the right of private defence of property when an opposing party attempts to construct a boundary wall on joint land without consent?
  • When can the appellate court uphold an acquittal based on the plea of self-defence supported by injuries sustained by the accused during the transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehan Dad Khan Versus Muhammad Shafique Khan1988 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Ahmad Versus Shakila Begum1988 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Versus Muhammad Anwar1988 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicefraudconcurrent findings of factcivil suitleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings of the trial court and the Additional District Judge regarding the validity of an ex parte decree. The original suit involved a claim of ownership over agricultural land, where the trial court issued an ex parte decree after the defendants avoided service and failed to appear following substituted service via proclamation. The petitioner subsequently filed a separate civil suit challenging the ex parte decree, alleging it was obtained through fraud and collusion between the plaintiff and the process-serving agency. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the petitioner failed to prove the allegations of fraud. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts had thoroughly examined the evidence and reached a factual conclusion that fraud was not established, and as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in those findings, there were no grounds to interfere. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding allegations of fraud in a second appeal?
  • Is an ex parte decree valid if it was obtained after substituted service was properly executed via proclamation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mounder Versus State1988 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15
  statutory baildelay in trialdesperate or dangerous criminalpost-arrest bailinterpretation of statutesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question pertained to the true interpretation and scope of the fourth proviso to section 497(1), specifically whether an under-trial prisoner can be classified as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' to be denied statutory bail solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the allegations forming the subject-matter of the pending trial, and what material a court must rely upon to make such a determination. The Supreme Court observed that the term 'criminal' is undefined in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that a conflict of judicial opinion exists regarding whether such matters should be decided on a tentative assessment of guilt. Finding these contentions to be of first impression requiring authoritative resolution, the Court granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an under-trial prisoner be considered a criminal before the determination of his guilt at trial for the purpose of denying statutory bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Upon what material is a court supposed to determine whether an accused person is a desperate, dangerous, or hardened criminal under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the heinous nature of the allegations that form the subject-matter of an ongoing trial suffice to categorize an accused as a dangerous or desperate criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Versus Government of Sindy1988 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-25
  constitutional petitionaggrieved partyvested rightpublic auctiongovernment contractlocal governmentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, cattle traders, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing their constitutional petition. The petitioners had historically been awarded contracts for a 'Mal-Piri' (cattle market) by the local authority through negotiation. When the respondent authority decided to put the contract to public auction, the petitioners challenged this, claiming a vested right to the contract due to their long-standing tenure and investment in the premises. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners had a vested right to the contract via negotiation and whether they qualified as 'aggrieved parties' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners possessed no vested right to the contract, as their previous possession was contingent upon the contract itself, and they were not owners of the land. Consequently, they lacked the standing to challenge the auction process. The Court affirmed that a contractor who has historically benefited from negotiated contracts cannot claim a vested right to continue such arrangements, nor does such a history render them an 'aggrieved party' entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against a public auction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractor who has historically been awarded contracts through negotiation acquire a vested right to continue such contracts?
  • Can a party who has no ownership interest in the premises of a business claim to be an 'aggrieved party' to challenge the auction of a contract related to that business?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by a party lacking a vested legal right to the subject matter of the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleemuddin Versus Teoomal1988 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-14
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertyremand orderjudicial admissionlandlord and tenantletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Sind High Court passed in a Letters Patent Appeal, concerning the identity and ownership of a shop in Shahdadpur. The core legal question involved the justification for recalling an order of remand and resolving the controversy regarding the identity of the disputed property vis-a-vis evacuee property transfer laws and prior judicial admissions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had made clear judicial admissions in prior civil and rent proceedings acknowledging the respondent's ownership and landlord status in respect of the exact shop in dispute. The Court established the principle that a party cannot be permitted to resile from clear admissions regarding property identity and make up a new case to sustain an unwarranted remand order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of remand is justified when the identity of the disputed property has been clearly established through prior admissions?
  • Can a party be permitted to set up a new case regarding property identity in contradiction to clear admissions made in earlier civil and rent proceedings?
  • Whether the High Court's Division Bench was justified in setting aside an order of remand passed by a learned Single Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Yousuf Versus Government of Sind1988 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-03
  service lawpensioncontractual servicelocal councils serviceconstitutional petitionqualifying service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition by the High Court of Sind, which had rejected his claim for pension following his retirement from service under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to count his previous service from 1st June, 1960 towards pension under rule 8 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's initial appointment as Chairman of the Municipal Committee was on a contractual basis, that his previous service under the Central Government had no nexus, and that the post of Chairman was not covered under rule 8 until subsequently included in the Local Councils Service schedule by notification dated 19th June, 1965. Consequently, his qualifying service for pension commenced from 19th June, 1965, falling short of the ten years required for pension, thereby entitling him only to gratuity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee serving on a contractual basis as Chairman of a Municipal Committee is entitled to count prior contractual and central government service towards pension under rule 8 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963?
  • From which date does service qualify for pension when a post is subsequently included in the West Pakistan Local Councils Service schedule?
  • Does service rendered under the Central Government have a nexus for pension purposes with subsequent service under the Provincial Government's local councils?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Chie Settlement Commissioner, Sind1988 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-02
  settlement lawtransfer of propertycrucial date of possessionletters patent appealauction of propertyquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which set aside a Single Judge's order directing the transfer of a disputed shop to the appellants. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Letters Patent Bench correctly construed documentary evidence and followed previous High Court decisions. The dispute involves competing claims for the transfer of a shop under settlement laws, where lower authorities and a remand report concurrent found that the appellants' predecessor-in-interest came into possession after the crucial date of 20th December 1958, thus lacking entitlement. The Supreme Court held that the finding on possession is a question of fact based on a proper appreciation of evidence and should not be disturbed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the appellants failed to establish their entitlement to the transfer of the disputed property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact regarding possession on or before the crucial date by a settlement authority can be disturbed in appeal?
  • Does a party acquire a vested right to the transfer of a property if their possession commenced after the crucial date?
  • Whether the High Court's Letters Patent Bench can direct a remand inquiry to determine the actual possession of the disputed property at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Versus Nazar Muhammad1988 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02
  pre-emptionsale or exchangeconcurrent findings of factregular second appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his regular second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The core legal question involved was whether the transaction in dispute constituted a sale or an exchange. Three lower courts rendered concurrent findings of fact holding that the transaction was a sale, and the High Court dismissed the appeal as the counsel failed to point out any misconstrued or omitted material evidence. The Supreme Court held that it is not inclined to reopen a matter finally decided by concurrent findings of fact when no material evidence has been misconstrued or omitted. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on second appeal unless material evidence has been ignored or misread.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange in a pre-emption suit?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts?
  • Can a regular second appeal be maintained without pointing out misconstrued or omitted material evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bord of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore Versus Ghulam Qadir1988 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus State1988 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razaq Versus State1988 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
• Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad Versus Muhammad Akram1988 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05
  service tribunalremoval from servicere-appraisal of evidenceleave to appealdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a junior clerk, was removed from service following a departmental inquiry, but the Service Tribunal re-examined the evidence, found the charges unestablished, and set aside the removal order. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a factual re-appraisal of evidence by the Service Tribunal in the absence of a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that since the Tribunal's decision rested on the re-appraisal of evidence and no substantial question of law of public importance arose, leave to appeal must be refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with factual findings or re-appraisals of evidence by a service tribunal unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the re-appraisal of evidence by the Punjab Service Tribunal when no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
  • Can the Service Tribunal set aside a departmental removal order after re-examining the evidence led during the inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus State1988 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-29
  leave to appealmurderlesser sentencemotivecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction and sentences under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question raised was whether the absence of an initial motive to kill, and the presence of an alternative motive to bring back the petitioner's wife, warranted the substitution of the death sentence with a lesser sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners were rightly convicted and sentenced to death given the circumstances of the case. The court laid down the principle that an underlying domestic or non-fatal initial objective does not automatically mitigate the offense of murder committed during the transaction, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does an initial motive to bring back a wife rather than commit murder warrant a lesser sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are justified when the accused went to the victim's house for a domestic purpose but committed murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali Versus State1988 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
• State Versus Muhammad Anwar1988 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02
  criminal appealacquittalcompromiseleave to appealeye-witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 307, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved the effect of a compromise between the parties and whether interference with an acquittal based on such a compromise was warranted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the factum of compromise stood admitted and was genuine, as affirmed by the legal heirs and eye-witnesses who appeared in court, no case was made out for interference with the acquittal. The Court established the principle that an appellate acquittal founded on a genuine and admitted compromise between the parties will not typically be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment when a genuine compromise has been effected between the parties?
  • Can eye-witnesses affirm a compromise before the appellate court through affidavits and personal appearance?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal maintainable where the complainant party refuses to press the conviction due to a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasira Surriya Versus Muhammad Aslam1988 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Shah Versus State1988 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
• Secretarv to the Government of Punjab, Education Department, Civil Secretariat. Lahore Versus Additionaldistrict and Sessions Judge, Lahore1988 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Lqbal Khan Versus Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratory1988 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02
  termination of serviceindustrial relationsaggrieved personfull and final settlementmisconductback benefitswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Laboratory Assistant, challenged the termination of his services for alleged misconduct involving the preparation of obscene prints. Following his termination, the petitioner accepted his full and final settlement dues without protest but subsequently filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement, finding the termination procedurally flawed. However, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, while ruling in favor of the petitioner on other grounds, held that his acceptance of terminal benefits precluded him from challenging the termination. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, affirmed the employer's position, ruling that the petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' under the law after accepting full settlement. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal's findings regarding the authorization of the appeal and the legal effect of accepting terminal dues. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the acceptance of dues bars a former employee from challenging the legality of their termination under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of terminal dues in full and final settlement without protest bar an employee from challenging the termination of their services under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction set aside a finding of fact recorded by a Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the authorization of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Muhammad Sarwar1988 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal petitionalteration of convictionsudden quarrelsingle transactionmurderSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8th February, 1987, whereby the respondents' conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder was altered to Section 334, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing their sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and sentence based on the finding that the occurrence took place as a single transaction during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, rather than being split into two parts as claimed by the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court was not perverse and could reasonably be formed upon the evidence. The petition was consequently dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an appellate court's appreciation of evidence regarding whether an occurrence constituted a sudden quarrel in a single transaction unless the view taken is perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to a lesser offence upon finding the occurrence was a sudden quarrel in one transaction?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the sequence of events during an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Muhammad Sarwar1988 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02
  enhancement of sentencelife imprisonmentdeath sentencefatal injuryjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence from imprisonment for life to death under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent and his brother were tried for murder, where the trial court convicted both and sentenced them to death. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of both accused but reduced the respondent's sentence from death to imprisonment for life, noting that the fatal injury was not attributed to him and relying on precedent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence of the respondent while confirming the death sentence of his co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court in taking a lenient view and reducing the sentence was not perverse, as the fatal injury was not attributed to the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for enhancement of sentence, upholding the exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of life imprisonment instead of death when the fatal injury was not attributed to the accused?
  • Is a petition for enhancement of sentence maintainable when the view taken by the High Court in mitigating the sentence is not perverse?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Begum Versus Zahoor Ahmad1988 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Versus Tariq1988 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05
  leave to appealacquittalright of private defenceocular testimonymiscarriage of justicecriminal revisionappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent, Tariq, of murder charges, overturning his conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent was justified, particularly given that the respondent admitted to inflicting the fatal injury on the deceased but claimed the right of private defence, a plea the High Court failed to adequately evaluate against the prosecution’s evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had disregarded the ocular testimony and recovery evidence solely because public witnesses were not produced, without properly juxtaposing the prosecution’s version against the respondent’s defence. Finding that the acquittal potentially resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the acquittal adhered to the established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must rigorously evaluate a plea of self-defence in juxtaposition with the prosecution's evidence, especially when the accused admits to causing the fatal injury.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court required to evaluate a plea of self-defence when the accused admits to causing the fatal injury?
  • Can an appellate court reject ocular testimony and recovery evidence solely because public attesting witnesses were not produced?
  • Does the failure to juxtapose the prosecution's version with the defence's version constitute a ground for granting leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul Versus Muhammad Akram1988 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26
  gift mutationundue influencefraudburden of proofdeclaratory suitleave to appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision regarding the validity of a land gift mutation. The core legal question was whether the gift was procured through fraud and undue influence, given the petitioner's claims of illiteracy, deafness, and poor eyesight. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving fraud or undue influence. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared alert and healthy in court, contradicting his own pleadings regarding his physical infirmities. Consequently, the Court found the gift was made with the donor's full understanding and willingness. The key principle laid down is that the onus of proving fraud and undue influence rests squarely on the party asserting it. Furthermore, mere illiteracy does not invalidate a gift transaction, and judicial observation of a party's physical condition can be a decisive factor in assessing the credibility of claims regarding incapacity or undue influence in the execution of legal documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving fraud and undue influence in a gift transaction lie with the party alleging it?
  • Can a donor's claim of physical incapacity be rejected if the court observes the donor to be healthy and alert?
  • Is a gift mutation rendered invalid solely on the grounds of the donor's illiteracy?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Haider Shah Versus State1988 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abu Fiayyab Versus Muhammad Saleem1988 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26
  review petitionclerical errorfactual inaccuracyconsequential correctionsuit disposalappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court judgment dated 22-2-1988, which had dismissed a petition for leave to appeal. The review petitioners contended that the Supreme Court's previous order contained a factual error regarding the status of the underlying suit, specifically that the suit had already been decided by the trial court, rendering the Supreme Court's direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit redundant. The Supreme Court held that while it was not a fit case for a full review of the judgment, it was necessary to make a consequential correction to the order to reflect the admitted fact that the trial court had already decided the suit. The Court clarified that the High Court's original direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously remained unexceptionable, but amended the specific paragraph of its previous order to remove the directive that had become moot due to the suit's prior disposal. The principle established is that the Court may exercise its power to correct factual inaccuracies in its orders when such corrections are necessary to reflect the admitted status of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court correct a factual error in its judgment regarding the status of a suit during review proceedings?
  • Is a direction by the Supreme Court for a trial court to dispose of a suit rendered moot if the suit has already been decided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadanwar Versus Muhammad Arif1988 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10
  settlement schemestatus quo orderdeed of associationproperty transferlocus standiconcurrent findings of factlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an open site adjacent to a residential property, previously transferred to the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the disputed site was available for transfer under the settlement scheme, whether a tenant could independently claim transfer of the site, and the validity of a deed of association executed during a subsisting status quo order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court. The Court held that the disputed area was an integral part of the property already transferred to the respondent and thus unavailable for further transfer. The Court established that a tenant lacks independent title to seek the transfer of property already possessed by the landlord, and that any deed of association or transfer action taken during the subsistence of a status quo order is a legal nullity. The Court further declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property boundaries and availability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant seek the transfer of an open site that is already part of the property transferred to their landlord?
  • Is a deed of association executed during the subsistence of a status quo order legally valid?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the availability of property for transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain Versus State1988 SCMR 1075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30
  leave to appealmurderlesser sentencefatal shotjoint firingcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Amir Hussain sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death for the murder of the deceased, while his co-accused was acquitted. The core legal question raised was whether two co-accused who fired at the deceased, resulting in only one fatal shot, are both entitled to the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life merely because it cannot be determined whose shot proved fatal, or whether a murderer can claim such benefit when one of them missed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the principle of lesser sentence applies when multiple accused fire at a victim but only one shot hits, specifically considering the effect of a missed shot by a co-accused. The Court laid down that further consideration is required regarding the application of mitigating circumstances based on attribution of fatal injuries in joint firing cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to a lesser sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when multiple persons fire at the deceased and it cannot be determined whose shot was fatal?
  • Can murderers claim the benefit of a lesser sentence merely on the ground that one of them missed the person at whom they intended to kill?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Versus Ghulam Mustafa1988 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02
  pre-emption suitlimitationcourt-feeprinciple of sinkerleave to appealvendees
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court's decree was initially reversed by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the suit was time-barred due to a deficiency in court-fee paid after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court subsequently set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree. The petitioners, who were the vendees, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court on two grounds: the incorrect application of the principle of sinker regarding the pre-emptor's superior right, and the issue of limitation concerning the court-fee. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to challenge the finding on the principle of sinker in the lower appellate court or the High Court, and thus could not raise it at the leave-to-appeal stage. Regarding limitation, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, relying on established precedent that the suit was within time despite the delayed court-fee payment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a legal ground in the Supreme Court that was not challenged in the lower appellate court or the High Court?
  • Does the payment of court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period for filing a suit render the suit time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ali Versus State1988 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-09Read full judgment →
• Altaf Pervez Versus State1988 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi Versus Sarwar Bibi1988 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24
  leave to appealcompromise in criminal caseslegal heirshomicidesentence reductionappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant mother against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents under sections 304/34 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged compromise. The prosecution case involved a dispute over drainage water leading to an assault on a pregnant woman who subsequently died from injuries to her abdomen. The defence contended that the deceased accidentally slipped and fell on bricks removed from a gutter. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court relate to the validity of a compromise entered into by the estranged husband of the deceased who lacked authority to act on behalf of all legal heirs, whether the conditions for a valid compromise under established precedent were satisfied, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the entire sentence rather than merely considering sentence reduction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised required detailed examination regarding the legality of the compromise and the resultant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an estranged husband of a deceased victim possesses the legal authority to enter into a binding criminal compromise on behalf of all legal heirs?
  • Can a High Court set aside an entire conviction and sentence on the basis of an invalid or unverified compromise?
  • Whether the conditions for a compromise laid down in precedent are duly satisfied when determining a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain Shah Versus Barkat Hussain1988 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
• State Versus Gulzar Masih1988 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30
  sentence reductiondeath penaltyfamily honourmitigating circumstancescriminal appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the respondent's sentence from death to imprisonment for life in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence was justified given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court examined the impugned judgment and heard arguments regarding the enhancement of the sentence. The Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, finding that the circumstances involving family honour warranted a lesser sentence than the death penalty under the relevant penal provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's petition for lack of merit, affirming the reduction of the sentence. The principle laid down is that matters involving family honour may constitute mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction in sentence from death to life imprisonment in homicide cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of death be reduced to imprisonment for life in cases involving family honour?
  • Is the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when family honour is a mitigating factor?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Asghar Versus Abdul Qudoos1988 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10
  criminal petitionacquittalbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidencemurderpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Peshawar High Court acquitting respondent No.1 of a murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with another, fired at and killed the deceased, Jalal Khan. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the High Court set aside the conviction, giving the respondent the benefit of the doubt due to material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the lack of reliable corroborating evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's evaluation of the evidence and its order of acquittal suffered from perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court regarding the evidence was not perverse or arbitrary, and no illegality or violation of established principles of evidence appraisement was pointed out. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that an order of acquittal will not be lightly interfered with unless the appreciation of evidence is wholly unreasonable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court's order of acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt warrants interference by the Supreme Court when the view taken of the evidence is not perverse or arbitrary?
  • Does the presence of material discrepancies in the testimony of eyewitnesses justify setting aside a conviction in a murder trial?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an order of acquittal in the absence of any illegality or violation of established principles of appraising evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Muhammad Ali1988 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon Versus State1988 SCMR 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus Abdul Rehman Alias Manna1988 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-06
  petition for leave to appealprivate defencemurdercross-caseacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder and related charges. The core legal question concerns whether the accused persons acted in the legitimate exercise of the right of private defence of person and property after being attacked by the complainant party. The Supreme Court held that the High Court took a fair and proper view of the circumstances, concluding that the complainant party initiated the attack and the accused acted within their right of private defence without exceeding it. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the accused party acted in the exercise of the right of private defence when attacked by the complainant party?
  • Did the High Court commit an error in evaluating the site plan and evidence regarding the exact place of occurrence?
  • Whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the acquitted respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Talawat Khan Versus Saeed Ullah1988 SCMR 1057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidenceretracted confessioneyewitness credibilityrecovery of weaponacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of murder charges, overturning a conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—specifically the recovery of a weapon and a retracted judicial confession—was sufficient to sustain a conviction when the sole eyewitness testimony was found unreliable due to material improvements and contradictions with medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's case lacked credibility. The Court held that the eyewitness's testimony was rightly disbelieved for attempting to align his account with medical evidence post-facto. Furthermore, the Court determined that the recovery of the weapon was suspicious, given the illogical use of a torch for recovery in an electrified house, and that the four-day delay in recording the confession, coupled with the accused's retraction, rendered the confession unreliable. The principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence is manipulated and eyewitness testimony is contradictory, the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the recovery of the weapon is found to be manipulated?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession, combined with a retraction at trial, render the confession unreliable?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the sole eyewitness testimony is found to be an improvement over the initial FIR to match medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Ziafat Panah1988 SCMR 1053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04
  leave to appealmurderacquittalidentification paradeabetmentcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These four connected petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted two accused persons (Ziafat Pannah and Mumtaz Ali) of murder, dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of five other accused, and dismissed a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The case involved the murder of Muhammad Sher, who was shot dead following an alleged motive stemming from illicit relations and a previous murder. The Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding the active role of Ziafat Pannah, identification proceedings, medical evidence, and the charge of abetment against Mumtaz Ali. Finding that the prosecution had presented a case requiring careful scrutiny and that the courts below warranted intervention regarding the acquitted accused whose charges were based on suspicion, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal regarding the five suspected accused but granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of Ziafat Pannah and Mumtaz Ali, ordering that they remain in custody during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons on charges supported by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of suspicion where there is no allegation of active participation in the occurrence?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the prosecution presents a prima facie case connecting the accused to the crime through motive and evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Versus State1988 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11
  leave to appealbenefit of doubtmurdercircumstantial evidenceocular testimonyacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent of a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondent, relying on ocular testimony, motive, and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The High Court, however, acquitted the respondent, finding the ocular testimony unreliable and the motive unproven. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court failed to properly weigh the totality of the evidence. Specifically, the Court noted the respondent was arrested immediately after the occurrence while in possession of a blood-stained weapon near the crime scene, a fact the accused failed to explain. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the FIR was recorded within thirty minutes of the incident and that medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's account. The Supreme Court held that ignoring such compelling circumstantial and corroborative evidence constitutes a potential miscarriage of justice, necessitating a review of the acquittal to ensure that the benefit of doubt is not applied arbitrarily.

  Questions settled

  • Does the immediate arrest of an accused with a blood-stained weapon near the crime scene constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant a conviction despite challenges to ocular testimony?
  • Can an appellate court ignore corroborative evidence such as prompt FIR registration and medical reports when assessing the reliability of an eyewitness?
  • Is the benefit of doubt applicable when the prosecution presents a chain of incriminating circumstances that remains unexplained by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakariya Versus Muhammad Ali1988 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-13
  election petitionballot paperselection symbolsmaterially affectedvoid electionmandatory provisionselection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an Election Tribunal's decision declaring an election for a Provincial Assembly constituency void due to the interchange of symbols on ballot papers. The core legal question was whether this misprinting materially affected the election result under the Representation of the People Act. The Supreme Court held that the printing of correct symbols is a mandatory requirement for the proper conduct of elections. The Court reasoned that the interchange of symbols violated provisions regarding the "prescribed form" of ballot papers, thereby creating significant confusion and uncertainty among voters. The Court rejected the argument that the inclusion of candidates' fathers' names mitigated the confusion, noting that voters primarily identify candidates by their symbols. Furthermore, the Court found that the misprinting effectively excluded affected candidates and created an environment where the fairness of the election was compromised. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the breach of statutory requirements materially affected the election result, justifying the declaration that the election was void. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the interchange of symbols on ballot papers constitute a violation of the mandatory provisions regarding the prescribed form of ballot papers?
  • Can an election be declared void if the misprinting of symbols creates confusion and uncertainty, even if the margin of votes is large?
  • Is the inclusion of a candidate's father's name on a ballot paper sufficient to cure the confusion caused by the misprinting of election symbols?
  • Does the failure to comply with statutory requirements for ballot paper printing justify a finding that the election result was materially affected?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Qutabuddin Khan Versus Muhammad Saeed Khan1988 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Sons Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1988 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10
  industrial establishmentstanding ordersdismissal from serviceshow-cause noticelabour disputeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition in a labour dispute. The core legal question involved whether Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to industrial establishments employing less than 49 persons, given the apparent conflict between the proviso to section 1(4) of the Ordinance and clause (5) of Standing Order 12. The Supreme Court noted that this question of law had already been settled by its earlier pronouncements in Al-Hassan Silk Mills Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court and M/s. N.J. Silk Industries v. Presiding Officer IVth Sind Labour Court. Applying those precedents, the Court held that the appeal was fully covered in favour of the appellant, setting aside the impugned judgments as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect, while recording the appellant's concession not to recover the amount already disbursed to the respondent. The principle laid down is that the statutory exclusions regarding applicability of certain Standing Orders to smaller industrial establishments under section 1(4) prevail, consistent with settled precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to industrial establishments employing forty-nine or fewer persons?
  • Does the proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 prevail over clause (5) of Standing Order 12 regarding the applicability of inquiry procedures?
  • Whether a workman dismissed without following the procedure under Standing Order 15 is entitled to reinstatement with back benefits in an establishment exempted under section 1(4)?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Versus Qalandar Khan1988 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-03
  private defenceright of self-defencemurderattempted murdersuppression of injuriesacquittal appealbenefit of self-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from three consolidated criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction and partial acquittal of accused Qalandar Khan for charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the accused on both counts, rejecting his plea of self-defence. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the murder charge under Section 302 by accepting his plea of self-defence under Section 100, but maintained his conviction under Section 307 regarding an injured witness, holding that the witness had retreated when shot. The Supreme Court re-appraised the evidence and observed that the prosecution had suppressed key facts regarding the initial fight, the injuries suffered by the accused, and the scene of occurrence, where no blood was found. The Court held that once the plea of self-defence was established from the overall circumstances and total evidence, there was no factual basis to split the right of self-defence or deny its full benefit regarding the second injured victim. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal of the accused, acquitted him of the charge under Section 307, and dismissed the appeals against his acquittal under Section 302.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of self-defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be accepted where the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused during the transaction?
  • Whether the right of private defence can be partially denied to an accused in respect of one victim when the overall sequence of events establishes a continuous apprehension of grievous hurt?
  • Does the absence of blood at the stated place of occurrence create reasonable doubt regarding the venue and prosecution version of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Versus Field General Court Martial, Rawalpindi1988 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-29
  Intra-Court AppealField General Court MartialOfficial Secrets ActPakistan Army ActLaw Reforms Ordinancelimitationrevision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent. The petitioner, a former Civilian Intelligence Officer in the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, was tried and convicted by a Field General Court Martial under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The petitioner challenged his conviction via constitutional jurisdiction, contending that multiple revisions under section 126 of the Pakistan Army Act were impermissible. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition and subsequently held the Intra-Court Appeal to be barred under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the applicable statute provided for revision. The Supreme Court examined whether the Intra-Court Appeal was competent and whether the petition against the Single Judge's order was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Intra-Court Appeal was rightly held incompetent as the Pakistan Army Act provides a remedy of revision, attracting the bar under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and further held that the petition was hopelessly barred by limitation. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan when the applicable law provides for a revision?
  • Does the prohibition of a second trial under the Pakistan Army Act apply to proceedings initiated after the promulgation of Ordinance XXXIX of 1983?
  • Can time spent prosecuting an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay in filing an appeal against the original order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir Versus Chief Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-24
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertysettlement commissionerconstitutional jurisdictionvaluation of propertyrevision petitionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee bungalow in Peshawar. The core legal questions involved the competence of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to restore a dismissed revision petition and entertain the matter after a change in revisional powers under Ordinance XIII of 1962, as well as the limits of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property valuation and transfer eligibility. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was competent—consistent with its prior ruling in Abdul Hakim v. Government of Pakistan—and that the High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement Commissioner's factual finding that the property's valuation exceeded the threshold for transfer to a local. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact recorded by a settlement authority based on inspection and evidence are not open to interference under constitutional jurisdiction, and settled questions of law previously adjudicated by the apex court cannot be reopened by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent to restore a revision petition dismissed in default after the amendment of revisional powers?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner regarding property valuation in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a local occupant eligible for the transfer of evacuee property when the valuation price of the portion in their possession exceeds ten thousand rupees?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus State1988 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderself-defenceleave to appeallesser penaltycriminal liabilitycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the convictions of Noor Muhammad and his son, Riaz alias Manna, for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to another. The trial court had convicted the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death. The petitioners challenged their convictions, arguing self-defence and, in the case of Riaz, that he acted under the influence of his father. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the convictions of both petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be well-founded based on the evidence. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding Riaz alias Manna to determine whether, given the circumstances and his father's presence, he was entitled to a lesser penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petition of Noor Muhammad was dismissed for lack of merit, while the petition of Riaz was granted limited to the question of sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a son acting under the influence of his father during the commission of a crime is entitled to a lesser penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused admits to firing the fatal shots during a land dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem-Ud-Din Versus Jameel Akhtar Pervaiz1988 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus Additional Settlement Commissioner1988 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05
  service grantproprietary rightsinheritancesettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictionlapse of grant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute over the devolution of land originally granted as a special service grant (Sukh Lambri grant) made during the Pindhari campaign in 1818-19. The core legal question concerned the correct interpretation of Condition No. 4 of the conditions of the grant, which dictated how proprietary rights would vest upon the lapse of the grant after three lives, and whether the land should devolve exclusively to the appellant or among all heirs of the original grantee according to Shariat. The Supreme Court held that upon the expiry of the grant's three-life tenure, proprietary rights correctly vested in all the legal heirs of the original grantee in accordance with applicable inheritance law, and further upheld that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in its discretionary writ jurisdiction with a just and equitable order passed by the Settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that grants governed by specific multi-life tenure conditions must, upon lapse, vest their proprietary rights in all eligible heirs of the original grantee as per prevailing inheritance laws, and equitable orders of settlement authorities under writ jurisdiction will not be lightly disturbed.

  Questions settled

  • How do proprietary rights devolve upon the lapse of a special service grant limited to three lives under Condition No. 4 of the grant conditions?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in declining to interfere in its discretionary writ jurisdiction with a just and equitable order passed by the Settlement authorities?
  • Can a claim of adverse possession against the Government succeed without establishing the requisite statutory period of possession prior to the establishment of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Versus The State1988 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdersudden fightsudden quarrelculpable homicidemitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising out of a criminal trial where the appellant, Muhammad Siddiq, was convicted under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Bashir Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the benefit of Exception IV to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be extended to the appellant on the ground that the occurrence was sudden and without premeditation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and fight in which both parties sustained injuries, the case fell squarely within Exception IV to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court converted the appellant's conviction from section 302 to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine and compensation orders. The key principle laid down is that where a homicide is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel and the offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be extended to an accused where an occurrence takes place all of a sudden and without premeditation?
  • Does a sudden fight accompanied by injuries to both parties attract the application of section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of section 302?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad Mann Versus Muhammad Ahmad1988 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22
  Rehabilitation Settlement SchemePre-emption decreeVesting of titleEvidence ActHardship casesSettlement AuthoritiesCivil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the validity of a property claim under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, specifically whether the deletion of paragraph 52 rendered pending proceedings infructuous and whether Settlement Authorities must strictly adhere to the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that the deletion of paragraph 52 did not extinguish the authority's power to address hardship cases, as the substantive power remained under paragraph 29 of the Scheme. The Court further determined that proceedings before Settlement Authorities are not strictly judicial in nature; consequently, the strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to their inquiries, allowing for a broader consideration of evidence. Regarding the pre-emption decree, the Court affirmed that under Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, title vests in the pre-emptor upon the payment of the decretal amount into court. The Court clarified that the execution of the decree and the subsequent withdrawal of the deposited money by the vendee are not necessary conditions for the vesting of title in the pre-emptor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deletion of paragraph 52 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme render pending proceedings for property claims infructuous?
  • Are the strict rules of the Evidence Act applicable to proceedings before Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities?
  • Does title in a pre-empted property vest upon the payment of the decretal amount into court under Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the execution of a pre-emption decree and the withdrawal of the deposited purchase money necessary for the vesting of title in the pre-emptor?
  Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad Khan Versus Rashidan Begum1988 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21
  property disputesettlement of claimsfinality of judgmentjurisdiction of settlement authoritiesres judicatacomposite buildingallotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a property dispute regarding the transfer of residential premises located behind a shop in Faisalabad, which was part of a composite building. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to re-open and alter the division of property that had already been finalized and affirmed by the High Court in previous litigation. The appellant, claiming to be the senior allottee, sought the transfer of the entire building, while the respondent contested the subsequent transfer of the residential portion to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the division of the property had attained finality through earlier judicial proceedings, specifically the High Court’s judgment, which had conclusively settled the distribution of the units. Consequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to interfere with this established division. The Court determined that the property was not available for further transfer, rendering the appellant's claim meritless. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot re-open or modify property divisions that have achieved finality through conclusive judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to alter a property division that has been finalized by a High Court judgment?
  • Can a party claim the transfer of an entire composite building when the property has already been divided into distinct units by settlement authorities?
  • Is a property that has been validly divided and transferred considered available property for the purposes of further settlement claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Prem Masih Versus Irshad Masih1988 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-27Read full judgment →
• Nabi Ali Shah Versus Muhammad Hussain Shah1988 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10
  displaced personsproperty transfersettlement departmentestoppel by conductprovisional transfer orderjoint transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil appeals arising from a property dispute over residential unit 'B' of a building in Lahore, involving rival claims by two displaced persons, Syed Nabi Ali Shah and Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah. The core legal question was whether the property, initially transferred jointly to both parties by the Settlement Department, should be transferred exclusively to one party based on their respective status as claimant or non-claimant displaced persons. The Supreme Court observed that while Syed Nabi Ali Shah, a claimant, lacked possession and was not strictly entitled to the transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the property had been transferred jointly at the express request of Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah. The Court held that Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah was bound by his own conduct and previous admissions regarding the joint transfer. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's decision that the exclusion of Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah from the Provisional Transfer Order was without jurisdiction, thereby affirming the joint transfer arrangement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who requested a joint transfer of property subsequently challenge the validity of that joint transfer?
  • Does a claimant displaced person without possession have a legal entitlement to the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Is the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order to the exclusion of a joint transferee considered to be without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Qureshi Versus Gulab Din1988 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  lachesconstitutional petitiontransfer of propertydisplaced personsnecessary partiesnullity of orderappurtenances
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the justification of the Lahore High Court in dismissing a constitutional petition on the sole ground of laches. The litigation arose concerning the transfer of a disputed property in Sialkot under the evacuee laws, which was originally earmarked and transferred to a widow and her associate, whose rights vested in the appellants. Subsequently, respondent Gulab Din obtained an order from the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling the prior transfer without impleading the affected parties and despite the appeal being time-barred. The appellants challenged this through a revision and ultimately a constitutional petition, which the High Court dismissed for delay. The Supreme Court held that the delay was not culpable as the appellants were diligently pursuing records and remedies amidst multiple pending proceedings, and that laches requires equitable considerations such as waiver or prejudice, neither of which barred the claim here. Furthermore, the Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order was a nullity due to non-joinder of necessary parties and being time-barred, and that possession of an outhouse does not entitle a claimant to the entire main property. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the transfer in favour of the appellants restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere delay in filing a constitutional petition automatically constitute laches barring relief?
  • Can an appellate settlement authority set aside a property transfer without impleading the transferee or interested parties?
  • Does possession of an outhouse or garage entitle a claimant to the transfer of the main residential property under evacuee laws?
  • What are the equitable principles governing the doctrine of laches in legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Anwar Versus Muhammad Riaz1988 SCMR 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Versus Roshnai1988 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →