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.

• Baha-Ud-Din Versus Muhammad Sharif1987 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  abatement of appeallegal representativesdissolution of partnershipsecond appealnon-joinder of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court holding that a second appeal had abated due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased respondent. The core legal question revolved around whether the second appeal abated in total or in part due to the death of a party and non-substitution of her legal representatives. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the respondent in question had died before the filing of the second appeal, she was not a party to that appeal, and consequently the question of abatement of the second appeal did not arise; thus, the High Court's order was unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that where a party dies prior to the institution of an appeal, the provisions regarding the abatement of pending appeals upon the death of a party do not apply, and the appeal does not abate for failure to substitute legal representatives of a person who was already dead when the appeal was filed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal abate when a party to the appeal had already died before the filing of that appeal?
  • What is the effect under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure when a respondent dies prior to the institution of an appeal in the High Court?
  • Can an appellate court treat an appeal as abated against a person who was not a valid party at the time of filing the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Versus State1987 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  self-defenceprivate defenceculpable homicidereasonable possibilitymedical evidenceocular evidencecriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to death for murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s plea of self-defence was reasonably possible, thereby creating doubt in the prosecution’s case, particularly given the medical evidence of scorching on the victim and injuries on the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s theory of an ambush was inconsistent with the medical evidence of close-range firing and the appellant’s injuries, which suggested a chance encounter and a physical struggle. Applying the principle from Safdar Ali's case, the Court determined that the appellant’s version of events was reasonably possible. Consequently, the Court held that while the appellant had a right of private defence, he exceeded it by using lethal force against non-lethal aggression. The conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of scorching on a gunshot wound indicate that the firing occurred at close range?
  • When does an accused person exceed the right of private defence?
  • If the defence version of events is reasonably possible, is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 be substituted with a conviction under Section 304, Part I, if the right of private defence was exceeded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus State1987 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Versus State1987 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  leave to appealmurdermotiverecovery of weaponcredibility of witnesscriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Sharifan, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding motive, the alleged misreading of witness testimony, compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding weapon recovery, and the credibility of interested prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, finding no misreading of evidence or legal infirmity in the lower courts' judgments. The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal murder case?
  • Does the non-association of witnesses from the locality during a weapon recovery vitiate the entire prosecution case under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an eyewitness account corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to maintain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1987 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24
  leave to appealmurderappreciation of evidenceacquittalprivate defencesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from a criminal case where the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf and co-accused Shaukat Anwar were tried and convicted under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court convicted both, but the High Court acquitted Shaukat Anwar, maintained Muhammad Ashraf's conviction under section 302 while reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, and maintained his conviction under section 307. The core legal questions concern the appreciation of ocular evidence, the use of recovery witnesses who are also eye-witnesses, and whether the High Court's findings regarding the sequence of events warranted sustaining the conviction or attracting the right of private defence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were observed and to consider the State's petition against the acquittal and quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court properly appreciated the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses while maintaining a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can eye-witnesses who also acted as recovery witnesses provide corroboration for their own testimony?
  • Whether the circumstances accepted by the High Court regarding the apprehension of danger attract the right of private defence?
  • Should leave to appeal be granted to examine the quantum of sentence and the acquittal of a co-accused when leave has already been granted in the connected petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Hussain Versus State1987 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  private defencemurdercriminal appealright of self-defenceappreciation of evidenceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The petitioner, having admitted to causing the death, contended that he acted in the exercise of his right of private defence of person and property, alleging that the deceased had trespassed onto shrine premises and attempted to attack him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s actions were justified under the plea of private defence. Upon examining the record, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s version was inconsistent with the medical evidence, as the fatal injury was caused by a dagger rather than the wedge he claimed to have used. Furthermore, the absence of injuries on the petitioner’s person contradicted his claim of a scuffle. The Court held that the plea of private defence was unsubstantiated and affirmed the conviction, noting that the trial and appellate courts had correctly rejected the defense and granted the petitioner the benefit of a lesser sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of injuries on an accused person contradict a claim of acting in self-defence during a scuffle?
  • Can a plea of private defence be sustained when the weapon used is inconsistent with the accused's version of events?
  • Is the possession of a lethal weapon like a dagger indicative of aggressive intent rather than defensive action?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali Versus State1987 SCMR 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Versus State1987 SCMR 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancecompromisesentence reductionimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ghulam Hussain, who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for murder, with his conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an out-of-court compromise between the parties, involving the transfer of land and marriages, could be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of death. The Court held that since the complainant party was sufficiently compensated and had entered into the compromise freely to foster goodwill, the compromise constituted a valid mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, partly allowed it by reducing the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life, granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and maintained the sentence of fine under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 along with sentences under Section 323. The key principle laid down is that a genuine out-of-court compromise resulting in compensation and reconciliation can serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an out-of-court compromise between the parties be considered as a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?
  • Whether a death sentence can be reduced to imprisonment for life on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when his death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1987 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat Versus State1987 SCMR 757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Shah Versus Haji Muhammad1987 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Versus State1987 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Versus Muhammad Ishaq1987 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
• Waqeel Ahmad Versus Abdul Rehman1987 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-07
  leave to appealre-appraisal of evidencebenefit of doubtmurderappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a criminal case involving murder and simple hurt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by acquitting three co-accused on the benefit of doubt while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, Umar Farooq, under Sections 302 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused, motivated by a land dispute, attacked the deceased and an injured witness. The trial court had convicted all four accused, but the High Court found two eye-witnesses unreliable and acquitted three accused due to lack of corroboration, while upholding Umar Farooq's conviction based on the injured witness's testimony and injuries found on the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning and appreciation of evidence suffered from no legal infirmity or contravention of established principles. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that re-appraisal of evidence is not justified where the lower court's findings are sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of re-appraising evidence when the High Court's findings are legally sound?
  • Can a conviction be maintained against one accused while others are acquitted on the benefit of doubt based on the corroboration of an injured witness?
  • Is the plea of self-defence sustainable when the evidence indicates the accused caused injuries during a dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lqbal Butt Versus Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore1987 SCMR 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad Versus Abdul Majid1987 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Alias Muhammad Azim Versus State1987 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-15
  bailabductioncriminal lawleave to appealminor childnon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' application for bail in a criminal case. The petitioners were charged under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of a seven-month-old infant from the mother's custody within the premises of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was justified given the circumstances of the case, which involved a failure to comply with judicial directions to recover and return the abducted child. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and the factual background, specifically noting the petitioners' non-compliance with prior court orders regarding the recovery of the minor. The Court found the High Court's findings to be unexceptionable and legally sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, thereby affirming the denial of bail to the accused petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Is the refusal of bail justified when the accused fails to comply with judicial directions to recover an abducted minor?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal merit consideration when the High Court's findings are based on unexceptionable facts and circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor Versus State1987 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  murdergrave and sudden provocationcooling-off periodleave to appealcommon intentionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The petitioners, who were brothers, had attacked the deceased with daggers, inflicting multiple fatal injuries. The defense contended that the prosecution's case was contradictory, and that the insult directed at the petitioners' father by the deceased three days prior to the incident constituted grave and sudden provocation, thereby mitigating the offense. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that because the insult to the petitioners' father occurred three days prior to the murder, the petitioners had sufficient time to cool down and reflect. Consequently, the plea of grave and sudden provocation was unsustainable, and the merciless attack with daggers constituted deliberate murder.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be sustained if the provoking incident occurred three days prior to the commission of the offense?
  • Does the lapse of three days between an insult and a retaliatory attack allow sufficient time for the accused to cool down, thereby negating the element of sudden provocation?
  • Whether multiple incised and stab wounds inflicted with daggers establish a deliberate intention to cause death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan Versus State1987 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Versus Zainab Bibi1987 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ghani Khan Versus Abdul Muqtadir Khan1987 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus Irfan1987 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04
  murderleave to appealabscondence as corroborationpartial acquittalocular testimonyenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a murder case, whereby one accused's conviction was upheld with a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment, and his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction of the petitioner could be sustained based on ocular testimony that was partly disbelieved as to the co-accused, and whether unexplained abscondence and related witness testimony provided sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused out of abundant caution does not render the eye-witness testimony untrustworthy against the remaining accused, and that unexplained abscondence coupled with corroborated ocular testimony sufficiently establishes guilt. The key principle laid down is that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan, and the testimony of eye-witnesses can be acted upon against one accused even if co-accused are given the benefit of the doubt, provided there is independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of some co-accused requires the rejection of eye-witness testimony as a whole against the remaining accused?
  • Can unexplained abscondence of an accused for a long period serve as corroboration for ocular testimony?
  • Whether leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death should be granted when the convict acted under the influence of an elder brother?
  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness incapable of providing independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Rashid Versus Shazia Parveen1987 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  maintenancedivorcearbitration councilquantum of maintenancefinancial capacityfamily lawrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the quantum of maintenance awarded to a divorced wife. The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Arbitration Council and the Collector, which had fixed maintenance at Rs. 2,000 and subsequently Rs. 800 per month, respectively. The core legal question was whether the maintenance amount fixed by the lower authorities was fair and commensurate with the petitioner's actual income, given his contention that his earnings were significantly lower than the awarded amounts. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the salary certificate provided by the petitioner related to a period prior to the marriage and did not accurately reflect his financial capacity during the relevant period. Furthermore, the Court noted allegations of additional income from a private business. Balancing these factors, the Court held that the previously determined rates were excessive. The Court exercised its discretion to modify the maintenance amount to Rs. 500 per month, establishing the principle that maintenance awards must be based on a realistic assessment of the husband's current financial capacity rather than outdated income evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a salary certificate from a period prior to marriage be used as conclusive evidence of a husband's income for maintenance purposes?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to modify the quantum of maintenance fixed by lower authorities in a revision petition?
  • Is a husband's potential income from private business relevant when determining the rate of maintenance for a divorced wife?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din Versus Sughari1987 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmed Versus Ausaf Ali Khan1987 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-31
  evacuee propertysettlement schemeP.T.D.vested rightconstitutional petitionpending application
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a disputed evacuee house in Peshawar. The core legal question was whether a property could be validly transferred to a third party through drawing of lots while a predecessor-in-interest's prescribed transfer application (N.C.H. form) based on lawful possession remained pending and undisposed of by the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that persons in possession of acquired evacuee property hold a vested right to its transfer under the settlement laws, and once a formal application is submitted, a statutory duty is cast upon the settlement authorities to dispose of it according to law, rendering the property unavailable for disposal during its pendency. Consequently, any subsequent transfer and issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) without deciding the pending application is without legal foundation. The Court laid down the principle that a pending transfer application cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or erroneous earmarking, and a P.T.D. issued under such circumstances does not provide a valid legal cover.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property can be transferred to another person while an earlier transfer application on the prescribed form remains pending and undisposed of by the settlement authorities?
  • Does a person in possession of acquired evacuee property acquire a vested right for its transfer upon submitting an application under the settlement laws?
  • Can a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) provide valid cover to a property transfer that was initiated while a prior entitlement form was pending?
  • Does administrative inaction on a pending transfer form defeat the statutory entitlement of an applicant in possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haider Zaidi Versus Abdul Hafeez1987 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain Versus State1987 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus Maula Bakhsh1987 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Versus Abdul Sultan1987 SCMR 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-19
  criminal petitionleave to appealbailmurderfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Sind High Court dated 1-4-1986 regarding the grant of bail to respondents facing trial under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and causing serious injuries with firearms. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to accused persons facing serious violent charges where the State fully supports the petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a good case for grant of leave is made out despite the non-service of notice on one of the respondents, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted in appropriate criminal matters supported by the State even if procedural service on a respondent is temporarily incomplete, provided the interests of justice so warrant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted against an order of the High Court regarding the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when one of the respondents has not been personally served with notice but the State fully supports the petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nati Versus Farrukh Latif1987 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hadi Baloch Versus Collector of Customs (Preventive)1987 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantpersonal hearingshow-cause noticeformal inquiryEfficiency and Disciplinary Rulesprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Federal Service Tribunal judgment upholding the appellant's removal from service. The core legal questions concern whether departmental authorities, having initiated disciplinary proceedings via a formal inquiry notice, could unilaterally switch to a summary procedure, and whether the denial of a requested personal hearing vitiated the removal order. The Supreme Court held that the removal order was passed without lawful authority. The Court established that once an Authorised Officer initiates proceedings under a specific rule, they cannot switch to an alternative procedure without valid justification. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where disciplinary rules mandate a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and the accused explicitly requests a personal hearing, the denial of such a hearing—particularly when the charges are vague and unspecific—constitutes a serious procedural irregularity that vitiates the resulting disciplinary order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Authorised Officer to proceed afresh from the show-cause stage, ensuring the appellant is granted a personal hearing in accordance with the rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Authorised Officer unilaterally switch from a formal inquiry procedure to a summary procedure after initiating disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the denial of a requested personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings vitiate the order of removal from service?
  • Is a disciplinary order based on vague and unspecific charges legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa Versus State1987 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-12
  criminal breach of truststay of criminal proceedingsquashment of proceedingscivil suit pendingpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, whereby the learned Judge stayed criminal proceedings under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code pending the decision of a connected civil suit, while refusing the request for quashment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in staying the criminal proceedings instead of quashing them when the petitioners had allegedly sought quashment. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no merit because the record of the High Court clearly showed that the only plea raised by the petitioner's counsel during the hearing was for the stay of proceedings, which was duly granted. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot agitate before an appellate forum that a relief was wrongly granted or omitted when the impugned order reflects that only the specific relief ultimately granted was prayed for by their counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be stayed pending the decision of a civil suit involving the same cause of action?
  • Can a petitioner challenge an order on the ground that quashment was sought when the High Court record shows only a request for a stay of proceedings was made?
  • Does a criminal case under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrant quashment when a civil suit is already pending between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Noorul Hasan Versus Secretary, Ministry of Industries Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1987 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  acting charge appointmentseniority-cum-fitnesscivil service promotionCentral Selection Boardright to promotionservice record assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Director on an acting charge basis, with the appellant, a senior Deputy Director, alleging that his supersession violated Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the appellant's case was duly considered by the Central Selection Board before the appointment was made. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was lawful, noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate that his case was not considered. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not found fit for promotion. The judgment establishes the principle that seniority alone does not confer an absolute right to promotion; rather, fitness is a critical, co-existing requirement. The competent authority retains the discretion to determine suitability based on a holistic assessment of seniority, competence, and service record. Consequently, the Court ruled that an acting charge appointment does not violate seniority rights, as it does not constitute a regular promotion or confer vested rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does seniority alone confer an absolute right to promotion in the civil service?
  • Is an appointment on an acting charge basis equivalent to a regular promotion for the purpose of seniority?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an acting charge appointment on the sole ground of seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Settlement Commissioner at Karachi1987 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28
  property transfersettlement schemeindivisible unitclaimant preferencewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Sind Karachi dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of a disputed property comprising two rooms under the settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the contesting respondent was rightly transferred the entire property unit when his original request was confined to the transfer of a single room only. The Supreme Court held that the property was an indivisible single residential unit possessing only one set of amenities and could not be partitioned into separate independent units, thereby justifying its transfer as a whole to the contesting respondent who held a preferential claim as a claimant. The court laid down the principle that where a disputed property unit is indivisible and lacks separate amenities for division, it may be transferred as a single entity to a party possessing a preferential entitlement under the applicable settlement scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an indivisible property unit comprising multiple rooms with shared amenities can be transferred as a single entity?
  • Does a claimant possess a preferential right to the transfer of an indivisible property unit under the settlement laws?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the indivisibility of a property be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hawabai Versus Muhammad Siddique1987 SCMR 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28
  evacuee propertydoctrine of lachestransfer of propertyimpersonationconstitutional petitionsettlement lawjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property in Karachi, originally transferred to the respondent in 1962. The petitioners, occupants of tenements on the property, challenged the transfer decades later, alleging impersonation by the respondent. The Notified Authority had initially set aside the transfer, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed this, finding the allegation of impersonation false and the proceedings time-barred. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court correctly set aside the Notified Authority's order. The Court held that the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, as the petitioners failed to explain a twenty-year delay in challenging a transfer that had remained intact despite prior litigation involving their relatives. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the allegation of impersonation was factually baseless, as the application form clearly identified the respondent's father correctly. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Notified Authority acted without lawful authority in reopening the matter after such an extensive period.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of twenty years in challenging the transfer of evacuee property attract the doctrine of laches?
  • Can a Notified Authority reopen a property transfer matter based on allegations of impersonation when the original application form contradicts those allegations?
  • Is a property transfer order immune from challenge after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed and the passage of significant time?
  Read full judgment →
• Saee Muhammad Versus State1987 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10
  double murderocular testimonyinterested witnessesappreciation of evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the double murder of his sister-in-law and niece, for which he was sentenced to death. The petitioner contended that the presence of semen on the victims' vaginal swabs supported his defense that he found them already dead, and challenged the reliability of the prosecution's eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts erred in relying on ocular testimony and in dismissing the forensic evidence regarding the vaginal swabs. The Court held that the ocular testimony was credible, consistent, and corroborated by motive and recovery evidence. It further ruled that the presence of semen on the swabs was likely an administrative error or bungling by the Chemical Examiner’s office, as it did not align with the medical evidence or the circumstances of the crime. The Court affirmed that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested witnesses, nor does it necessitate the rejection of their testimony in the absence of proven animosity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be rejected?
  • Can a court dismiss forensic reports as administrative errors when they contradict the established prosecution case and medical evidence?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence when lower courts have concurrently relied on consistent ocular testimony and corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Seema Akhtar Versus Ahmed Din1987 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqlain Versus State1987 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Wazarat Hussain Zaidi Versus National Construction Co. Ltd1987 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Versus State1987 SCMR 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Versus Ghulam Mohyuddin1987 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20
  evacuee propertyland settlementallotment cancellationdisplaced personrehabilitation schememortgage rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the land allotment of a displaced person under evacuee property laws. The core legal question was whether the authorities could reopen and cancel a finalized land allotment and transfer the land to third parties following the adjustment of claims. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly ruled the cancellation order to be illegal and without jurisdiction, as a claimant is entitled to adjust unutilized verification units against alternative claims without third parties acquiring a preferential right to that specific land. The Court laid down that a finalized allotment cannot be reopened merely because an initial claim entry was modified, provided no fraud occurred, and that previous settlement orders exhaust themselves once record mutations reflecting true ownership are executed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to reopen a finalized land allotment years after the repeal of the settlement laws?
  • Does a third party acquire a preferential right to specific land merely because the original claim against which it was allotted was disowned or adjusted by the claimant?
  • Can unutilized verification units be adjusted to enable a displaced person to retain land originally allotted under a different claim number?
  • Does an order mutating records under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme require further consequential execution to cancel independent allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus Commissioner, Sargodha Division1987 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-11
  leave to appealconstitutional jurisdictionremoval from officemisconductmilitary court convictionlocal governmentdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the removal of the petitioner from his office as a member of the Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, following his conviction by a Summary Military Court under Section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court properly exercised its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in declining to interfere with the order of removal and whether adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error or contravention of judicial principles in refusing to interfere under its discretionary jurisdiction, particularly given the petitioner's own admissions and the fact that he was convicted by a competent forum after a raid supervised by a Magistrate. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction against the removal of a local government representative where findings of fact, admissions, and valid convictions support the administrative action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in declining to interfere with the removal of a municipal councillor?
  • Does a conviction by a Summary Military Court for corruption constitute valid grounds for removal under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to interference in constitutional jurisdiction when material admissions are contained in their reply to a show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus State1987 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus State1987 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-30
  special leave to appealmurdermurderous assaultself-defenceocular evidenceacquittalidentity of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court upholding the convictions and death sentences of the petitioners for murder and murderous assault under sections 302 and 307 read with section 149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while also setting aside the conviction of a respondent whose appeal was accepted regarding his identity. The core legal questions relate to the appreciation of ocular evidence, the establishment of motive, the plea of private defence, and the correct identification of an accused person. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioners and the complainant party to further examine the contentions raised regarding the evidence, injuries sustained by the accused, and the identity of the respondent. The holding establishes that where substantial contentions are raised concerning the evaluation of evidence, identification, and cross-versions of an occurrence resulting in capital punishment, leave to appeal is warranted for a thorough re-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of an accused on the ground of identity doubt?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused persons are found to be the aggressors?
  • Whether contradictions in ocular evidence and the presence of injuries on the accused require a reappraisal of the case by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1987 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
• Rashid Alias Pappu Versus State1987 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdercompromisecapital sentencemitigating circumstanceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his step-mother and the sentence of death imposed upon him. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased could form the basis for altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that upon verifying the genuineness and voluntarism of the compromise and the receipt of compensation by the legal heirs, including minors, the petition should be converted into an appeal and the capital sentence altered to imprisonment for life with the fine remitted. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the heirs of a deceased victim and the convict in a murder case constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a sentence of death to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between an accused and the legal heirs of a deceased victim result in the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a leave petition into an appeal and dispose of the matter based on a compromise?
  • How are the rights of minor heirs protected when a compromise is reached in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali Versus Fateh Muhammad1987 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular testimonymedical evidenceabscondencecorroborationcriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment acquitting the respondent, Fateh Muhammad, of charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, could be sustained by circumstantial evidence, specifically the respondent's motive and subsequent abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence, which indicated the injuries were caused by a single assailant using a double-barrel gun rather than two separate shooters as alleged, demolished the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court affirmed the acquittal, ruling that the ocular testimony was intrinsically unreliable and unworthy of credence. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is fundamentally contradicted by medical findings and is otherwise unreliable, circumstantial evidence such as motive and abscondence cannot serve as sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can circumstantial evidence like abscondence corroborate ocular testimony that is intrinsically unreliable?
  • Does medical evidence contradicting the eyewitness account regarding the number of assailants render the ocular testimony unworthy of credence?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary evidence against them is discredited?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Versus Shabbir Hussain1987 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Gul Zareen Khan1987 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• Khan Zaman Versus Khan Zamsn1987 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11
  abatement of appeallegal representativesseverability of interestinheritance mutationlimitation perioddivisible property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the abatement of an appeal following the death of a respondent during the pendency of proceedings. The appellants challenged a mutation of land inheritance, claiming a superior right to succession under Shariat law. During the pendency of the first appeal, one respondent (a transferee of a small, specific portion of the land) died, and the appellants failed to implead his legal representatives within the statutory limitation period. The lower appellate court dismissed the entire appeal, holding that it had abated in toto. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the appeal abated entirely or only against the deceased respondent. The Court held that because the deceased respondent had purchased a specific, divisible portion of the land, the appeal did not abate in its entirety. The principle laid down is that where the interest of a deceased respondent is distinct, severable, and relates to a specific, divisible portion of property, the appeal abates only against that deceased party, rather than abating the entire proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal abate in its entirety upon the death of one respondent if the deceased respondent's interest in the property is specific and divisible?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an entire appeal due to the failure to implead the legal representatives of a respondent who held only a distinct, severable portion of the disputed land?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Bibi Versus Muhammad Sarwar1987 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas Versus State1987 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealpre-trial bailmurderpolice investigationpresumption of innocenceocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the appellant's application for pre-trial bail in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the accused to bail when police investigation reports declare them innocent, notwithstanding a private complaint naming them as assailants. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be accepted and the appellants released on bail, noting that senior police officers found the appellants innocent after considering defence evidence, which strengthened the presumption of innocence, and that firearm expert reports contradicted the High Court's finding regarding multiple weapons. The key principle laid down is that findings of innocence by investigating officers, corroborated by objective evidence such as firearm reports, reinforce the pre-trial presumption of innocence and weigh heavily in favor of granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether findings of innocence by senior police officers during investigation strengthen the presumption of innocence for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a private complaint overriding police discharge reports disentitle an accused to pre-trial bail?
  • Can bail be refused on the erroneous assumption that multiple weapons were used when the firearm expert report indicates otherwise?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Versus Settlement Commissioner (Lands)1987 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11
  Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) ActMukhbari applicationfraudulent allotmentnatural justiceright to be heardIntra-Court Appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the fraudulent allotment of agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The dispute arose when heirs of a deceased claimant obtained land allotments in Gujranwala despite the claim having been previously settled in Hyderabad. Informants filed a Mukhbari application, leading a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to resume the allotments. The vendees of this land challenged the resumption order. The High Court, in an Intra-Court Appeal, distinguished between vendees who received notice of the proceedings and those who did not, allowing the appeal of the latter while dismissing the former. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the potential for inconsistent findings. The core legal question is whether, in cases involving identical issues of fraud regarding the same property, a finding of fact can be bifurcated based on whether individual parties received notice of the initial inquiry. The Court held that the possibility of conflicting outcomes necessitates further examination, as evidence presented by one group could potentially benefit the others.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of fraud regarding a land allotment be upheld against some vendees while being set aside for others based solely on the lack of notice?
  • Does the failure to provide notice to some parties in a Mukhbari proceeding create a risk of inconsistent findings regarding the same subject matter?
  • Can a court dismiss a writ petition on the grounds that affording a hearing to the affected parties would be an exercise in futility?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Bibi Versus Abdus Sattar1987 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  ejectmentnon-proprietorshamilat dehcustomary lawtenancy rightsinheritance of propertycivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-5-1974, which had accepted a second appeal and ordered the ejectment of the appellant and respondents 2 to 6 from the disputed house. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a member of the village proprietary body and owner of a contiguous house is entitled to the possession of a house in the occupation of non-proprietors merely because they are not shareholders in the undivided Shamilat Deh. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant and respondents 2 to 6 are the direct descendants of the original owner and occupant of the house, they are neither newcomers nor outsiders, and their occupation is thus not hit by the mischief of customary law provisions regarding non-proprietors disposing of village sites. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the judgments of the High Court and trial court were set aside, and the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that direct descendants of an original residential site occupant who remain in possession do not fall within the restrictions applicable to non-proprietors disposing of village sites without proprietor consent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a member of the village proprietary body and owner of a contiguous house is entitled to the possession of a house in occupation of a non-proprietor merely because he is a shareholder in the undivided Shamilat Deh?
  • Does the restriction on non-proprietors disposing of village sites apply to direct descendants of the original occupant of the site?
  • What is the legal effect of the conversion of tenancy rights into ownership under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 upon village proprietary status?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Versus Government of Pakistan1987 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain Phulpoto Versus Returning Officer, P.S. 26-a, Khairpur-1/S. D.M. , Khairpur1987 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  election petitiondisqualificationmoral turpitudeSummary Military CourtMartial Law Regulationsunauthorized procession
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal arose from a decision of the Provincial Election Tribunal (Sind) which de-seated the appellant, an elected member of the Sind Provincial Assembly, on the ground of disqualification due to a prior conviction by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulations 5 and 36 read with Martial Law Order 77. The respondent contended that the conviction, which arose from leading a political procession during the M.R.D. Movement, involved moral turpitude. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the Tribunal had sufficient legal evidence to establish that the conviction involved moral turpitude. The Court observed that while the police record (FIR and statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.) alleged violence, no evidence of the actual judicial proceedings, depositions, or findings of the Military Court was produced. The Court held that a conviction for organizing or participating in an unauthorized procession under Martial Law Regulation 5 does not per se involve moral turpitude unless the purpose of the procession has a direct nexus with it. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction for organizing or participating in an unauthorized procession under Martial Law Regulation 5 per se involve moral turpitude?
  • Can an election tribunal rely solely on police records, such as the FIR and statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., to determine if a conviction by a criminal court involved moral turpitude?
  • Is the absence of the actual trial record and judicial findings of a convicting court fatal to proving a disqualification based on a crime involving moral turpitude?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman Versus Government of N.-W.F.P1987 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationinflationary factordevaluation of currencyreference court
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions are directed against the judgments and orders of the Peshawar High Court arising from land acquisition references under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning lands acquired for the Tarbela Dam Reservoir Project. The core legal question raised was whether landowners are entitled to compensation reflecting the market value at the time of actual expropriation or the date of notification under section 4, taking into account inflationary factors and devaluation of the currency when assessment is delayed by several years. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that since no factual basis or relevant material including the inflationary index was produced before the lower forums, leave to appeal must be refused, while observing that the point might need serious consideration in a case where proper basis are laid. Additionally, the Court noted that minor arithmetical or clerical calculation errors could be corrected in accordance with the High Court judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be assessed on the basis of market value at the date of notification or the date of actual expropriation?
  • Can the courts take judicial notice of currency devaluation and inflationary factors when assessing land compensation without relevant material and inflationary indices being placed on record?
  • Is section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 exhaustive of all factors to be examined when determining fair compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhabbat Ali Versus Ahmad Khan1987 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  murderreversal of acquittalrelated witnessesnatural witnesseseye-witness testimonyspot arrestcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent Ahmad Khan, who was originally tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Noor Sain, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's sons and the propriety of the High Court's acquittal based on surmises. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the testimony of natural and related eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased in the absence of any established animus or motive to falsely implicate the accused, especially when corroborated by prompt reporting, medical evidence, and the spot arrest along with incriminating recoveries. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related eyewitnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of animus?
  • Whether the acquittal by the High Court can be set aside when it is based on surmises and conjectures and ignores material evidence like spot arrest and recoveries?
  • Does the presence of natural witnesses sleeping at the scene of the crime establish their reliability in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Sultan Versus Election Tribunal Zila Council/ District Judge, Gujranwala1987 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10
  election petitionamendment of petitionElection Tribunalnew grounds of challengeRule 8(4)local council electionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a writ petition challenging an order of the Election Tribunal, which had permitted an election petitioner to amend his election petition by adding entirely new grounds of challenge. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition against the interlocutory order. The core legal question was whether Rule 8(4) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 permits the addition of new grounds of challenge to an election by way of amendment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Tribunal's and the High Court's orders. The Court held that while Rule 8(4) empowers the Tribunal to allow amendments for better and fuller particulars of existing allegations, it imposes a strict limitation that prohibits the raising of any new ground of challenge. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to permit the introduction of new, unconnected grounds after the original petition was filed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Election Tribunal have the power under Rule 8(4) of the Election Petitions Rules 1979 to permit new grounds of challenge to be added to an election petition by way of amendment?
  • Whether the provisions of the Election Petitions Rules regarding amendments override the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in case of conflict?
  • Can an election petitioner introduce new grounds for challenging an election under the guise of furnishing better particulars?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Alias Bhopal Versus State1987 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10
  leave to appealre-appraisement of evidencecriminal appealmedical evidence inconsistencywitness credibilityacquittal challengeenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from petitions directed against convictions as well as an acquittal and a prayer for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question involves the re-evaluation of extensive evidence concerning the involvement of a large number of accused persons, inconsistencies in medical evidence regarding firearm injuries, and the propriety of partially disbelieving a star witness while relying on their testimony for other convictions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the features of the case and the discrepancies in the evidence require a comprehensive review of the entire material to ensure the safe dispensation of justice. The key principle laid down is that where evidence contains significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding medical reports and the selective reliance on witness testimony, a thorough re-appraisement of the record is warranted by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inconsistencies between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant a re-appraisement of the entire material for safe dispensation of justice?
  • Can a witness be believed in part against certain accused while being disbelieved regarding the implication of another co-accused?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of conviction and acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqlain Versus State1987 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Ata Muhammad1987 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurderattempted murderchance encounterleave to appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  Three petitions seeking leave to appeal were filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The trial court had convicted the accused persons under section 302 and section 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death, one to life imprisonment, and another. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one accused, altered the conviction and sentence of another, and confirmed the death sentence of the main offender, holding that common intention was not proved due to a chance encounter without pre-concert. The core legal questions involved the assessment of eyewitness testimony, the presence of the complainant, and the application of vicarious liability under section 34 in the absence of common intention. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that where common intention does not appear from the events or pre-concert, vicarious liability does not follow, and each accused must be punished solely for their own criminal acts. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attaches in the absence of pre-concert or common intention during a chance encounter?
  • Can the testimony of injured eyewitnesses be discarded solely because the complainant's presence at the actual spot of occurrence is doubted?
  • Whether an accused who played no active role and was merely present can be convicted when common intention is not proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority Versus Land Acquisition Collector1987 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08
  land acquisitioncompensation entitlementfinality of judgmentwrit petitionleave to appealsubsequent purchasercivil court decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) against a High Court order that dismissed its writ petition in limine. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, where the LDA challenged the entitlement of subsequent purchasers to compensation after a notification had been issued. The core legal question was whether the LDA could challenge the compensation rights of purchasers who acquired the land after the notification, particularly when the LDA had failed to challenge a prior civil court decree and a Commissioner's order that had already become final against it. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the LDA had allowed the civil court decree and the Commissioner's order to attain finality, it lacked any legal standing to reopen the matter. The Court declined to interpret the relevant statutory provision, noting that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for such an exercise given the procedural history and the finality of the earlier decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority challenge a compensation award after failing to appeal a final civil court decree on the same matter?
  • Does a party have standing to challenge a compensation claim when it has allowed the underlying administrative and judicial orders to attain finality?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner has failed to challenge the final judgment of a civil court regarding the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Khan Versus Saeed Akhtar1987 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-15
  Permanent Transfer DeedSettlement authoritiesfunctus officiopower of attorneyfraud and misrepresentationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court in a property dispute concerning an evacuee house in Lalamusa. The appellant, an allottee of the house under Settlement Scheme No. I, had paid the full price but was surreptitiously deprived of his rights through an agreement of association executed by his attorney in favour of the attorney's son, leading to the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the latter. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner set aside the transfer upon finding fraud and breach of trust. However, the High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the Settlement authorities became functus officio after the issuance of the P.T.D. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in going behind the findings of fact without substantial grounds and reaffirmed that a P.T.D. obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction is subject to appellate and revisional scrutiny under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the Settlement authorities' orders restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed deprives the Settlement authorities of their appellate and revisional jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Can the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction go behind the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities?
  • Does a general power of attorney inherently include the power to alienate or dispose of the principal's property without a clear, specific clause to that effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Versus Safdar Zaman Khan1987 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08
  land acquisitionshamilat dehcompensation for improvementsco-sharer rightsres judicataburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the distribution of compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam Project. The appellant, a co-sharer in Shamilat Deh land, claimed exclusive entitlement to compensation for improvements he allegedly made to the land, specifically transforming it from Banjar Qadeem to Chahi Aabi. The trial court initially ruled in his favor, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the compensation belonged to the proprietary body of the village. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer who allegedly improves Shamilat land is entitled to exclusive compensation for those improvements. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to provide evidence of actual improvements. The Court clarified that mere leveling of land or clearing of bushes does not constitute an 'improvement' justifying exclusive compensation. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that a separate, unappealed judgment regarding the same award created a res judicata bar, noting that the foundation for that judgment had been invalidated by the High Court's decision in the present case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere leveling of land and clearing of vegetation constitute an 'improvement' for which a co-sharer is entitled to exclusive compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a judgment based on a prior decision that has subsequently been set aside by a higher court still operate as res judicata?
  • Is a co-sharer entitled to exclusive compensation for improvements made to Shamilat land without evidence of substantial investment or structural development?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilbaz Khan Versus State1987 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonymedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalmitigating circumstancesentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising from a murder case where the Lahore High Court partly allowed a criminal appeal. The core legal questions involve the reliability of eye-witness testimony following the partial acquittal of co-accused, the impact of medical evidence contradicting the ocular account, and the consideration of youth as a mitigating factor for sentencing. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of certain co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt does not inherently discredit unimpeachable eye-witness testimony against remaining convicts, and that medical evidence must be assessed in its entirety regarding the nature and location of injuries. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal regarding the conviction of the primary petitioner, but granted leave to appeal restricted to the question of sentence for a younger petitioner due to his age.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of certain co-accused on the benefit of doubt render the ocular testimony unreliable against the remaining accused?
  • Whether eye-witnesses can be discredited solely because certain recoveries of crime weapons are held to be inconsequential?
  • Can a witness be classified as an interested witness merely for assisting an injured person after the occurrence?
  • Whether youth is a ground for granting leave to appeal on the question of sentence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Versus Chief Conservator of Forests, Southern Zone, Multan1987 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus State1987 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Janjua Versus Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Islamabad1987 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Munir Versus Province of Punjab1987 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Saleem1987 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-16
  territorial jurisdictioncivil procedurecontractual agreementforum selection clauseinsurance policypublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit filed by the respondent against the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan for the recovery of insurance proceeds. The respondent initiated the suit in Lyallpur, where the cause of action arose, despite an agreement in the insurance policy stipulating that any disputes would be adjudicated exclusively by civil courts in Lahore. The core legal question was whether parties can validly agree to restrict the adjudication of disputes to one of several courts that otherwise possess jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that such an agreement is not contrary to public policy and does not violate Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872, nor does it contravene Sections 9 or 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, provided that the chosen court itself possesses jurisdiction under the Code. The Court established the principle that while parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court that lacks it, they may lawfully agree to limit litigation to one of several competent forums, and such agreements are binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can parties to a contract validly agree to restrict the adjudication of disputes to one of several courts that otherwise possess jurisdiction?
  • Does an agreement to limit litigation to a specific court violate Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can parties confer jurisdiction upon a court that does not possess it under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 through a mutual agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaque Versus State1987 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ahmed Versus Jawed Salehjee1987 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-03
  ejectmentdefault in rentelectricity chargessub-meter readingbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the respondent-tenant. The core legal questions involve whether the tenant committed a default in paying electricity charges according to the sub-meter reading and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the suit premises. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was indeed a willful defaulter for failing to pay electricity charges based on sub-meter readings and that the landlord successfully proved his bona fide personal requirement for his large family, notwithstanding the use of certain ground-floor rooms for a pre-existing factory. The appeal was consequently allowed, restoring the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to deposit electricity charges according to sub-meter readings constitutes a default in the payment of rent for ejectment purposes?
  • Does the expansion of a pre-existing factory into vacated ground-floor rooms negate a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for residential premises?
  • When can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of a Rent Controller regarding a tenant's default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Nasim Versus Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore1987 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Versus Manzoor Hussain1987 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Versus Saeed Ahmad Butt1987 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-25
  WAPDAservice lawdeputationretirement from serviceService Tribunal jurisdictionofficial recordstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a Service Tribunal decision that set aside the retirement of an employee, Saeed Ahmad Butt, who was retired under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act while on deputation. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to review such orders given Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, and whether an employee on deputation is subject to the Authority's power to retire under Section 17(1-A). The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation was erroneous. It ruled that the phrase 'employed by or serving under' the Authority in Section 17(1-A) is disjunctive, meaning an employee on deputation remains subject to the Authority's disciplinary powers, including retirement. Furthermore, the Court held that a private 'To whom it may concern' certificate cannot override official service records and assessments. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for fresh examination in light of established precedents regarding the Authority's powers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'employed by or serving under' in Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 apply to employees currently on deputation?
  • Can a private certificate of service override official records and assessments in employment matters?
  • Does the WAPDA Act 1958 empower the Authority to retire an employee who is serving on deputation elsewhere?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Muhammad Yaqoob1987 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22
  criminal petition for leave to appealdouble murderright of self-defencesudden fightconcurrent findingsappraisal of evidencehouse trespassbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of several accused persons for double murder, house trespass, and causing injuries, while acquitting one co-accused and altering a death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question involves evaluating conflicting versions of a criminal occurrence—specifically, whether the incident was a sudden fight involving the right of self-defence as claimed by the defence, or a premeditated attack and house trespass resulting in murder as established by the prosecution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence, rejecting the fabricated defence version supported by the physical evidence of a broken house door and window where one deceased was found. The Court affirmed that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the prosecution's version were sound and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on a careful appraisal of ocular and medical evidence, establishing a clear sequence of aggression and rejecting a false defence plea, will not be disturbed by the apex court in criminal petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the rejection of a defence version of self-defence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the chasing of an injured victim into a residential house and breaking open doors negate the plea of a sudden fight?
  • Whether the appellate court is justified in granting the benefit of the doubt and acquitting a co-accused while maintaining the convictions of others based on a careful appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus State1987 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alias Moonda Versus State1987 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderdying declarationocular testimonyappraisal of evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner was charged with the murders of Inayat Bibi and her daughter Mst. Sajida by inflicting multiple incised wounds with a Chhuri after trespassing into their house with a design to commit sexual intercourse. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court upon appeal and reference. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the dying declaration made by the deceased victim was reliable, given her physical condition after sustaining severe injuries. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was fully reliable, noting medical evidence certifying the victim's mental fitness and senses at the time of making the statement, and further observed that the ocular testimony, motive, and recovery of the weapon corroborated the conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can be relied upon when the victim has sustained multiple severe injuries?
  • Does the medical certification of a victim's mental fitness support the admissibility and credibility of a dying declaration?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding the appraisal of evidence without a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqf.T Ali Versus State1987 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20
  leave to appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstancescriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his conviction and death sentence under section 302 along with a sentence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether any mitigating circumstances existed to warrant the reduction of the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Court held that the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition on merits and failed to demonstrate any mitigating circumstance that would justify a lesser sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of valid mitigating circumstances shown by the defense, a death sentence confirmed by the High Court will not be interfered with by the apex court on a petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be reduced to imprisonment without proof of mitigating circumstances?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a confirmed death sentence when the petition is not pressed on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1987 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23
  post-arrest bailrefusal of bailabscondencecriminal antecedentsSection 302 PPCmurderspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the High Court was justified in refusing post-arrest bail to an accused facing murder charges on grounds of criminal antecedents and abscondling. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that the petitioner was involved in multiple other criminal cases including theft, rape, criminal intimidation, and house trespass, and had previously absconded while co-accused remained at large. The Court upheld the trial court's finding that releasing the petitioner on bail was likely to hamper the progress of the trial. The key principle affirmed is that an accused person's history of abscondence, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of obstructing trial proceedings are valid grounds to refuse bail in a capital offense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether previous abscondence and involvement in multiple other criminal cases constitute valid grounds to refuse bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be denied where the release of the accused is likely to hamper the progress of the trial?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order refusing bail when the accused has a history of absconding and criminal antecedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus State1987 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
• Salim Siddiqui Versus State1987 SCMR 2100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Versus Wali Muhammad1987 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21
  Intra-Court AppealDisplaced PersonsCompensation PoolEvacuee PropertyLand SettlementLeave to AppealProperty Rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders of Settlement authorities and restored land holdings to the respondent petitioners. The core legal questions concern the competency of Intra-Court Appeals in light of prior Supreme Court precedents, the status of property under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, specifically whether it was acquired under Section 4(2) and formed part of the Compensation Pool, and the vesting of land in the Provincial Government under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1973. Additionally, the court must determine the effect of prior Supreme Court decisions on the finality of earlier administrative determinations regarding the evacuee or non-evacuee character of property interests. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that these issues require an authoritative pronouncement, and ordered the appeals and pending review applications to be heard together.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent and maintainable against a judgment of a High Court in view of the decision in Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh?
  • Whether property not acquired under Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 forms part of the Compensation Pool?
  • Does land, in the absence of a notification under Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, vest in the Provincial Government under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Esso Eastern Inc. Versus Ark Navigation Company1987 SCMR 2097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11
  forma pauperisdeficit court feelimitationseisin of the courtcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the High Court granting an application under sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for time to pay court fees after an application to sue in forma pauperis under Order XXXIII had been dismissed and the subsequent appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court as barred by time. The core legal question was whether a court retains seisin of an application to sue as a pauper to allow time for court fee payment under section 149 after the matter has been finally dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the pauper application and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal ended the proceedings, and a court cannot entertain a section 149 application once it has lost seisin of the case. The Court clarified that its previous order merely permitted the respondents to file a fresh suit on payment of court fees subject to limitation, rather than reopening the concluded matter. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's order set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow time under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pay court fees after a pauper application has been finally dismissed and the court has lost seisin of the case?
  • Whether the dismissal of an appeal against the refusal of permission to sue in forma pauperis leaves any pending matter in which an application under sections 148 and 149 can be made?
  • What is the effect of an appellate court's observation permitting a party to file a fresh suit upon payment of court fees subject to limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad Versus State1987 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25
  post-arrest bailSection 412 PPCdacoitystolen propertyrecovery of stolen propertyleave to appealdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not directly named in the main dacoity FIR, but 50 bags of stolen cotton yarn out of the stolen consignment were recovered from his possession at his instance. The petitioner argued that there was no material on record to demonstrate that he had prior knowledge of the dacoity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail, holding that it was not a fit case for interference given the magnitude of the recovery linked to the stolen property. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail when a large quantity of stolen property from a dacoity is recovered from the accused?
  • Whether an accused charged under Section 412 PPC is entitled to bail solely on the ground that he was not named in the initial dacoity case?
  Read full judgment →
• Maskeen Ali Versus Muhammad Latif1987 SCMR 2037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  criminal compromisereduction of sentenceleave to appealinjured personsPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge reducing the respondents' sentences based on a compromise. The respondents were originally convicted under sections 307, 326, 324, and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate. During the appeal, three of the four injured persons stated they had compromised with the respondents. The Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentences to the period already undergone while increasing the fines. The core legal question was whether a valid compromise existed despite one injured person not appearing personally. The Supreme Court held that the compromise was validly established by the statements of the other injured family members represented by the head of the family. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that a partial compromise involving key family members can sufficiently establish a settlement in criminal matters for the purpose of sentence reduction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise in a criminal case can be established when one of the injured persons does not personally appear before the court?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of sentences based on a compromise?
  • Whether the head of a family can represent injured family members in effecting a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan Versus Yasmin Zafar1987 SCMR 2029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24
  temporary custodyguardian judgeright of appealinterlocutory orderleave to appealfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the temporary custody of two minor daughters. The respondent mother had applied for temporary custody under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890, which was dismissed by the Guardian Judge. Her appeal under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 was subsequently dismissed by the District Judge on the ground of incompetency. The respondent successfully challenged this dismissal via a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which set aside the District Judge's order and remanded the appeal for a decision on the merits. Although the District Judge subsequently decided the appeal on remand, the petitioner sought an authoritative pronouncement on the legal question. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine whether an interlocutory order for temporary custody passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 constitutes a 'decision' within the meaning of Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, thereby making an appeal competent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Family Court or Guardian Judge under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 amounts to a decision within the meaning of Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Whether an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 before the District Judge under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Zohra Versus Zahoor1987 SCMR 2026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  leave to appealconsecutive sentencescommon objectmurderrapesentence commutationcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court upholding convictions and modifying sentences for murder, rape, assault, and related offences committed during an attack across two locations forming part of the same transaction. The core legal questions involve the legality of consecutive sentences exceeding statutory limits and whether co-accused participating at a separate location are liable for offences committed at the primary site under a common object. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to examine the legality of consecutive sentences under section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and to the complainant regarding the acquittal of certain co-accused for the major offences, while declining to interfere with the High Court's commutation of the death sentences in view of mitigating circumstances regarding family honour. The key principle laid down is that substantive sentences of imprisonment must respect the statutory limits on consecutive sentencing, and dual-site incidents forming part of a single transaction require careful examination of common object and pre-concert.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of multiple substantive sentences of imprisonment without a direction for them to run concurrently exceed the limits imposed by proviso (a) to section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the High Court's discretion in commuting a sentence of death to imprisonment for life should be interfered with where the attack emanated from considerations of family honour arising from illicit relations.
  • Can co-accused who participated in an attack at a secondary location escape liability for offences committed at the primary location during a pre-concerted attack carried out in prosecution of the same common object?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Versus State1987 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1987 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
• Hafizan Begum Versus District Judge, Attock1987 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-28
  ejectmentex parte orderlimitationappellate jurisdictionrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an ejectment application filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether an appellate authority, while hearing an appeal solely against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order, could set aside the original ex parte ejectment order itself when no appeal had been filed against it and it was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge erred in interfering with the original ejectment order because no appeal was preferred against it and it was barred by time without any application for condonation of delay. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate court cannot set aside an original judgment or order when the appeal is strictly confined to a subsequent interlocutory or procedural order refusing to set aside an ex parte order, leaving the time-barred original order unchallenged.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court set aside an original ejectment order when the appeal is solely directed against a subsequent order refusing to set aside an ex parte order?
  • Whether an appellate authority can interfere with a time-barred order against which no appeal was filed and no condonation of delay was sought?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan Versus State1987 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-24
  criminal breach of trustpublic servantmisappropriationcorruptionsentence reductiondeterrent punishmentfood-grain godown
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from a High Court order that maintained the conviction of the appellant, a public servant, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for the misappropriation of wheat and sugar from a government godown, but reduced his sentence of imprisonment and fine. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence to prove criminal breach of trust, and the propriety of the High Court's reduction of sentence for a corruption offense committed by a public servant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, supported by the stock shortage and the deposit made by the accused's relatives. Concurrently, the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the sentence reduction and restoring the original trial court sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,500. The key principle laid down is that corruption and criminal breach of trust by public servants must be dealt with a heavy hand, and punishments must be deterrent and commensurate with the gravity of the offense rather than lenient.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of a public servant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained solely on the basis of stock register shortages and incriminating conduct?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in substantially reducing the sentence of imprisonment for a public servant convicted of criminal breach of trust?
  • What is the appropriate sentencing principle to be applied in cases of corruption and misappropriation of public property by public servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus State1987 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Alias Kalu Versus State1987 SCMR 1894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Versus State1987 SCMR 1891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-02Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Versus Taj Muhammad Shah1987 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-17
  restoration petitioncondonation of delaylimitation perioddismissal of petitionprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for restoration which were filed with a delay of 49 days. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the condonation of this delay under the relevant legal framework for restoration petitions. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court determined that the applicants failed to demonstrate any valid or satisfactory justification for the delay. Consequently, the Court held that no case for condonation of delay had been established. The petitions were dismissed on the basis that the delay remained unexplained and unexcused. The principle reaffirmed is that a party seeking restoration of a petition after the expiry of the limitation period bears the burden of providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and in the absence of such justification, the court will not exercise its discretion to condone the lapse.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of 49 days in filing a restoration petition warrant condonation without a satisfactory explanation?
  • Is the burden of proof on the applicant to justify the condonation of delay in restoration proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Bisvil Spinners Ltd. Versus Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs Circle, Sheikhupura1987 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus State1987 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Versus State1987 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-16
  murderleave to appealeyewitness testimonyprompt FIRappreciation of evidenceconvictionreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence relating to an eyewitness account and the prompt lodging of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner, supported by prompt lodging of the First Information Report, natural eyewitness testimony from related witnesses who were not inimical, and immediate apprehension of the accused at the spot with a blood-stained weapon, warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, corroborated by prompt lodging of the First Information Report and immediate arrest with incriminating evidence at the scene of the crime, is reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether related eyewitnesses can be relied upon when the First Information Report is lodged promptly after the occurrence?
  • Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence concurrently evaluated by the lower courts when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is shown?
  • Whether immediate apprehension of the accused at the spot along with a blood-stained weapon is sufficient corroboration in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →