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.

• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1987 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus State1987 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Lajwanti Versus Abdul Ghafoor1987 SCMR 1744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05
  ejectmentrent restrictionlegal representativesprocedural lawlimitationappellate procedureCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by landlords against a tenant, Poorandas, under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Following the dismissal of the application by the Rent Controller and the subsequent death of the tenant, the landlords filed an appeal in the High Court. During the appellate proceedings, the landlords sought to implead the remaining legal heirs of the deceased tenant, which was allowed. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the amendment to Section 15 of the Ordinance, which removed the reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, precluded the application of provisions like Order I, Rule 10, thereby rendering the appeal against the newly impleaded heirs time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine whether the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are applicable to appellate proceedings under the Ordinance following the 1980 amendment. The Court held that the legal question regarding the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to rent appeals requires further examination and stayed the eviction pending the final hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, exclude the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to appellate proceedings?
  • Can legal representatives be impleaded in a rent appeal after the period of limitation has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamadullah Versus Mir Muhammad Nawaz1987 SCMR 1734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05
  withdrawal of petitiondismissal as withdrawnsupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the petition upon the request of the petitioner. The court's decision is to grant the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner is at liberty to seek withdrawal of their petition, upon which the court may dismiss the same as withdrawn accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner seek permission to withdraw a petition before the Supreme Court?
  • What is the effect when a request to withdraw a petition is granted by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam .Dastgir Versus Niazi1987 SCMR 1733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21
  leave to appealsecond complaintinherent jurisdictionspecial lawscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had allowed an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge restoring a criminal complaint. The petitioner initially filed a criminal complaint under section 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Magistrate, which was referred to a Tribunal under Ordinance II of 1968 and subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. A second complaint involving additional offences was later filed and dismissed by the Magistrate, leading to revision proceedings and eventual intervention by the High Court. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in areas governed by the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968, and the maintainability of a second complaint involving separate offences. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding jurisdiction and the maintainability of the second complaint merit consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings in an area governed by the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
  • Is a second criminal complaint maintainable when it includes offences different from those alleged in the initial dismissed complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad Uppal Versus Water & Power Development Authority1987 SCMR 1731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Aulad Hussain Shah Alias Phul Pir Versus State1987 SCMR 1728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-19
  leave to appealmurdercommon intentionbenefit of doubtacquittaldeath sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder and rioting incident. Five individuals were originally tried under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the deaths of two women. The trial court acquitted one accused and convicted the other four, sentencing two to death and two to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two more accused, upheld the convictions of the remaining two, but reduced their death sentences to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court considered cross-petitions seeking leave to appeal against the acquittals and the reduction of sentences. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony, the sustainability of convictions when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence, and the impact of an unestablished motive on sentencing. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittals of the three accused but granted leave to appeal to the convicted persons against their convictions and to the complainant party for the restoration of the death sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can the convictions of certain accused persons be maintained when co-accused are acquitted on the basis of the same evidence?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the death sentences on the ground that the motive was shrouded in mystery?
  • Does the acquittal of several co-accused warrant interference with the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding remaining convictions?
  • Are ocular testimonies corroborated by a dying declaration sufficient to sustain murder convictions in the presence of family enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Awan Versus Shaukat Ali1987 SCMR 1726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20
  acquittalcircumstantial evidenceleave to appealmurderresiling witnessesbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondent was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a nurse at Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore. The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondent, citing the fact that prosecution eye-witnesses had resiled from their statements and that recovery evidence was unreliable. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed—specifically documents recovered from the deceased's room linking the respondent to her, and the testimony of a witness who observed the respondent fleeing the scene—to warrant a conviction despite the failure of direct eye-witness testimony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, noting the necessity of re-evaluating the trial record in light of these submissions. Warrants of arrest were issued for the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when direct eye-witnesses have resiled from their statements?
  • Does the recovery of personal documents belonging to an accused from the deceased's possession constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiqan Versus Multan Silk Rayon Mills1987 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertycompensation poolland acquisitionlocus standiallotment cancellationDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) ActIndustrial Area Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the title to land between an allottee of the Multan Improvement Trust and successors of a claimant under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The primary issue was whether the disputed land formed part of the compensation pool under the 1958 Act, or if it was excepted due to prior government sanction for acquisition under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the land was excepted from the compensation pool by the notification issued under the 1958 Act. The Court held that the Central Government's prior sanction for acquisition under the 1949 Ordinance effectively removed the land from the pool, rendering the appellants' subsequent allotment invalid. The Court established that the factum of sanction for acquisition under the 1949 Ordinance is sufficient to bring land within the exception clause of the notification, regardless of whether acquisition proceedings were fully completed before the notification under the 1958 Act was issued. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the respondent's possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior sanction for acquisition under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, exclude land from the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Must acquisition proceedings be fully completed before a notification under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for the land to be excepted from the compensation pool?
  • Can a party challenge an existing allotment of land without first establishing a valid title or interest in that land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Abbasi Versus Settlement Commissioner, South Zone, Karachi1987 SCMR 1636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertysettlement schemeconversion of propertyearmarking schemetransfer of propertyvoid ordernatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind regarding the transfer of an evacuee property in Larkana under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether a property could be disposed of under the Earmarking Scheme while an application for its transfer as a converted property (clinic) and a statutory determination of its status under Settlement Scheme No.I remained pending, and whether the rejection of the initial transfer form without notice rendered the subsequent allotment void. The Supreme Court held that the initial rejection of the appellant's form without notice was a nullity, and that pending the determination of the property's converted status under Para 20 of Settlement Scheme No.I, the property was not available for disposal via earmarking. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the transfer order in favor of the appellant, and laid down that an evacuee property whose character is under review for conversion cannot be validly allotted to a third party until the conversion and entitlement proceedings are lawfully concluded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an evacuee property can be transferred under an earmarking scheme while an application for its determination as a converted property is pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
  • Does the rejection of a transfer application without affording a mandatory hearing or notice render the resulting order a nullity in law?
  • Whether a prior transfer of property made in disregard of pending statutory conversion proceedings can prevail over a subsequent transfer granted under applicable settlement policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Manzoor Ahmad,1987 SCMR 1620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  Ihata allotmentCivil Court jurisdictionColonization of Government Lands Actfraudnatural justiceCollector's powersouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that reversed lower court decisions regarding the cancellation of an Ihata allotment by a Collector. The primary issue was whether the Collector had the authority to cancel an allotment obtained through fraud and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to challenge the Collector's findings on fraud, given the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The Court held that the Collector was competent to inquire into allegations of fraud and cancel the allotment accordingly. The Court affirmed that Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where the Collector is empowered to act, provided the Collector acts within the limits of their power and adheres to the principles of natural justice. Since the respondent failed to allege a violation of natural justice or lack of evidence, the suit was barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Collector have the authority to cancel an allotment of land if it was obtained through fraud?
  • Does Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where the Collector is empowered to act?
  • Under what circumstances can a Civil Court interfere with the findings of a Collector acting under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Versus State1987 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14
  leave to appealforgeryillegal gratificationhandwriting expertprimary evidencecriminal convictionanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and Section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a clerk, was accused of accepting illegal gratification and forging an allotment order for land. The core legal questions concern whether a conviction for forgery can be sustained when the original document is not produced at trial and whether the testimony of a handwriting expert, who initially exonerated the accused but later reversed his opinion, constitutes reliable evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the original allotment order was missing and noted the contradictory nature of the handwriting expert's testimony. Finding that the submissions regarding the evidentiary value of the missing document and the expert's testimony raised substantial issues, the Court granted leave to appeal. The decision highlights the necessity of scrutinizing the reliability of expert evidence and the impact of missing primary evidence on the sustainability of criminal convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for forgery be sustained when the original document alleged to be forged is not produced at trial?
  • Does a handwriting expert's contradictory testimony, where an initial opinion is reversed after a significant delay, undermine the reliability of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the absence of the original document in a forgery case a fatal defect to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Controller of Insurance Versus Platinum Insurance Co.Ltd.1987 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Versus State1987 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Shah Versus State1987 SCMR 1448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  double murderocular testimonymedical evidencerelated witnessesrecovery of weaponsmitigating circumstancesyouthful offendercommutation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the concurrent convictions and death sentences of the appellants for the double murder of Mehboob and Inayat Hussain under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on prompt ocular testimony by related and natural witnesses, corroborated by motive and the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, alleged discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence regarding the nature of weapon injuries, and the question of sentencing leniency based on the youthful age of the offenders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the medical evidence was not in conflict with the ocular testimony, as the injuries were inflicted by heavy sharp-edged weapons, and that the related witnesses were reliable in the absence of proven enmity. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the elder appellant but partly allowed it for the younger appellant, commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life on account of his tender age at the time of the commission of the offense. The key principle established is that minor misdescriptions of wounds by an inexperienced medical examiner do not discredit consistent ocular testimony, and youth can be a mitigating factor for sentence commutation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of wounds are sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
  • Does the relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy in the absence of previous enmity?
  • Can the tender age of an accused person serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the recovery of blood-stained weapons at the instance of the accused provides reliable corroboration to the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Versus State1987 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencemitigating circumstancesprovocationdowry disputecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Asghar Ali against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death for causing the death of Muhammad Rafique. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances relating to the motive of the crime. The Supreme Court held that since the deceased's refusal to return the dowry of the petitioner's sister provoked the occurrence, the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life, maintained the fine, and directed that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that persistent refusal by the deceased to return property or dowry, leading directly to the provocation of the offender, can constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal of the deceased to return the dowry of the offender's sister constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence?
  • Can the Supreme Court substitute a sentence of death with imprisonment for life upon finding provocation arising from the conduct of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Versus State1987 SCMR 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02
  post-arrest bailmurderextra-judicial confessionlast-seen evidencesubstitution of accusedfurther inquirySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the post-arrest bail petition of the appellant, Ghulam Shabbir, who was implicated in the murder of Ghulam Hussain. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant was entitled to bail given that the initially charged accused were discharged by the police during investigation and the appellant was subsequently substituted on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence, despite the multiplicity of injuries suggesting multiple assailants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant was entitled to bail and allowed the appeal, directing his release upon furnishing appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is substituted later on doubtful circumstantial evidence and weak extra-judicial confessions, and the nature of injuries indicates the involvement of multiple persons with a distinct motive originally attributed to others, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under the law, making out a fit case for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused substituted during investigation on weak circumstantial evidence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries indicating more than one assailant warrant further inquiry into the guilt of a sole substituted accused for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether an extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence of doubtful nature constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Versus State1987 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04
  death sentencemitigating circumstancescompromisemurdersentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction and death sentence imposed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Amanat Bibi. Following the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the parties presented a compromise deed and supporting affidavits, indicating that the accused had sufficiently compensated the legal heirs of the deceased and that the heirs were satisfied with the settlement, which was intended to ensure future peace between the families. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties in a murder case could serve as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of a death sentence. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise as a valid mitigating factor. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while upholding the sentence of fine. The judgment affirms the principle that a compromise between the parties can be considered a mitigating circumstance in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties in a murder case be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes?
  • Does a compromise between the parties justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Versus State1987 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Shahzada Shahpur Jan1986 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicepresumptive payannual incrementsofficiating promotionFundamental Rulesservice tribunalhigher post duties
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals concern the entitlement of civil servants to receive pay and annual increments in a higher grade when performing the duties of that post without formal promotion. The core legal question is whether such employees are entitled to the presumptive pay of the higher post, including increments, and whether the government can invoke Fundamental Rule 35 to deny these benefits. The Supreme Court held that civil servants who are qualified for the higher post and are assigned its full responsibilities are entitled to the presumptive pay of that grade, including annual increments, absent a specific, valid order to the contrary. The Court clarified that Fundamental Rule 35, which permits the fixing of pay at an amount less than admissible, cannot be used as a general tool to deny increments; its application requires specific, individual consideration. However, the Court distinguished cases where the employee lacks the requisite qualifications for the higher post, holding that such individuals, often designated as 'Clerk-in-Charge,' are not entitled to the higher grade's pay and increments.

  Questions settled

  • Are civil servants performing the duties of a higher post without formal promotion entitled to the pay and increments of that higher grade?
  • Can the government invoke Fundamental Rule 35 to generally deny annual increments to civil servants officiating in higher posts?
  • Does a civil servant who lacks the requisite qualifications for a higher post, but is assigned its duties, have a legal right to the pay and increments of that higher grade?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Dad Versus Border Area Allotment Committee1986 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07
  Border Area AllotmentDiscretionary JurisdictionFraudulent AllotmentWrit PetitionSettlement Department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of a land allotment by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The core legal questions involved whether land within the Border Belt could exclusively be allotted by the Border Area Allotment Committee, whether urban land within the border area fell under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959, and the competence of the Settlement Department to make allotments after the promulgation of the said regulation. The Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that the High Court correctly found the underlying allotment transaction to be fictitious, fraudulent, and engineered by the appellant for his own benefit when he was already holding maximum land in the border area. Consequently, the Court recalled the leave to appeal previously granted and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land within the Border Belt could only be made by the Border Area Allotment Committee?
  • Whether urban land within the border area came within the ambit of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959?
  • Whether the Settlement Department was competent after the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 to allot land to persons other than legitimate claimants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Versus Safia Begum1986 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16
  tenant estoppellandlord and tenantevictiondefault in rentevacuee propertydenial of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an eviction order passed against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment, which was upheld by the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the Lahore High Court. The appellant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming that the disputed property was hidden evacuee property transferred to him by the Settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the plea of estoppel under section 116 of the Evidence Act barred the tenant from questioning the landlord's title under such circumstances. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant, having been inducted by the landlord and the tenancy subsisting, was estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act from questioning the landlord's title. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant cannot challenge the landlord's title during the subsistence of the tenancy unless the denial of title is based on undisputed and proved facts demonstrating that the landlord's title was legally nonexistent ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant is estopped from questioning the title of his landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy under section 116 of the Evidence Act?
  • Can a tenant successfully deny the landlord's title based on a subsequent transfer of the property by the Settlement authorities as hidden evacuee property without establishing the invalidity of the landlord's prior title?
  • Whether the Rent Controller is bound to enter into complex questions of title when a tenant sets up a setting of evacuee ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Begum Versus Iqbal Hussain Qureshi1986 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
• Amjad Farooq Versus State1986 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Government of the Punjab1986 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17
  service tribunalrecovery proceedingsstock shortagere-checking of storesacquiescence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15-12-1983 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the petitioner, a Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department, was held responsible for a partial shortage of stock and T.P. articles. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could base its judgment on a re-checking and scrutiny of stock conducted by an Executive Engineer during the pendency of the appeal without formally associating the petitioner with the inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner having welcomed and acquiesced to the course of re-checking adopted by the Tribunal and having benefited from the reduction of liability, cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the procedure when it does not entirely set aside the recovery order. The key principle laid down is that a party who acquiesces in a procedural course adopted by a tribunal and derives benefit therefrom cannot subsequently challenge that same procedure to avoid the remaining adverse consequences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a procedural course adopted by a tribunal in appeal after acquiescing to it and deriving partial benefit therefrom?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the authority to order re-checking of stock during the pendency of an appeal to determine the correctness of allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq Versus State1986 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir Versus State1986 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus Muhammad Sabir1986 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Kausar Versus Mashkoor Fatima1986 SCMR 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  petition for leave to appeallimitationcondonation of delayincompetent appealdeceased appellantsettlement hierarchy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Kausar, daughter of the deceased Mst. Aisha Bibi, against a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 26-10-1981, which had denied the transfer of property claimed on the basis of possession and an order of the Central Government dated 3-8-1960. The current petition is barred by 1270 days. An earlier petition for leave to appeal had been filed improperly in the name of the deceased Mst. Aisha Bibi and was consequently dismissed as incompetent by the Supreme Court on 18-3-1985. The core legal question concerns whether a massive delay in filing a properly constituted petition can be condoned based on the history of previous defective litigation undertaken by the legal representatives. The Supreme Court held that the matter stands concluded by its earlier order dated 18-3-1985, leaving no scope to re-open the grounds or condone the inordinate delay. The principle laid down is that a petitioner cannot circumvent a prior final adjudication regarding a defectively constituted petition to re-litigate limitation and merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay of over one thousand days be condoned on the basis of time spent prosecuting a previously dismissed defective petition filed in the name of a deceased person?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be entertained when the matter stands already concluded by a prior order of the Supreme Court recalling leave?
  • Does the filing of a defective petition by a legal representative in the name of a deceased party save limitation for a subsequently instituted properly constituted petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1986 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-09
  leave to appealreappraisal of evidencesudden fightException 4 to Section 300 PPCculpability in sudden fightacquittalattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the High Court in a case involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The trial court had convicted multiple accused for murder and attempted murder under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. On appeal, the High Court determined that the incident constituted a sudden fight falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requiring individual determination of culpability. Consequently, the High Court altered the primary murder conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence, and acquitted several co-accused. The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's reasoning and concluded that a thorough reappraisal of the evidence was necessary regarding the mitigation of the murder offense for the convicted petitioner, as well as the acquittals of the co-accused. Thus, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a finding of a sudden fight under Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC require determining individual liability for each participant?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the High Court's reappraisal of evidence regarding sudden fight and acquittals requires further scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus State1986 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed Versus President, National Bank of Pakistan1986 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20
  leave to appealjurisdiction of labour courtsnationalized banksindustrial relationsdismissal of employeeswage commission award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, wherein it was held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide cases brought by employees of nationalized banks and financial institutions whose services were terminated or who were dismissed. The petitioners had initially challenged their termination or dismissal orders before the Labour Courts through petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which had mixed outcomes before the Labour Courts and were subsequently dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the parties raised important questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts, the National Industrial Relations Commission, the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the definition of 'worker' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively determine these substantial questions of law governing a large number of service-related cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Courts constituted under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the grievances of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions arising out of the infringement of any term of the award of Wage Commission constituted under section 38-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has sole jurisdiction under section 22-B(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain and adjudicate cases of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions for redress of their individual grievance guaranteed under any law or an award or settlement?
  • Whether the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the cases of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions?
  • Whether dismissed workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions are not covered by the definition of 'worker' as embodied in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1986 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal petitionleave to appealsanction for prosecutioncorruptioncentral government employeeprovincial department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam, a clerk in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, challenging his conviction and sentence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was earlier upheld by the High Court. The core legal question raised was whether the Provincial Government had the lawful authority to accord sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, given the contention that he was an employee of the Central Government and that the notification purporting to provincialize the Settlement Department had never come into force. The Supreme Court observed that the Additional Advocate-General was unable to place the relevant notification on record and required further time for research. Consequently, the Court held that a fit case was made out to grant leave to consider the question regarding the validity of the prosecution sanction. The Court accordingly granted leave to appeal subject to security for costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Government is competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of an employee belonging to the Settlement Department?
  • Does a failure by the State to produce the notification provincializing a department warrant the grant of leave to appeal regarding prosecution sanction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Versus State1986 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-16
  Zina-bil-Jabrabductionkidnappinglawful guardianshipminor victimstatutory minimum sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Federal Shariat Court judgment confirming his conviction and sentences under Sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was charged with abducting a minor girl under sixteen years of age and committing Zina-bil-Jabr. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the victim's consent could be pleaded as a defense when the victim is a minor under the age of sixteen. The Court held that the definition of 'kidnapping from lawful guardianship' under Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 must be read into Section 11 of the Ordinance, rendering any argument regarding consent immaterial due to the victim's age. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 11 of the Ordinance, the court has no discretion to award a sentence of imprisonment less than life imprisonment. Finding no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and no grounds for leniency, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the defense of consent be availed by an accused under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if the victim is under sixteen years of age?
  • Is Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to define kidnapping for the purposes of Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a court have the discretion to award a sentence of imprisonment less than life imprisonment for an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Versus Muhammad Bashir Ahmad1986 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-26
  election petitionwrit petitiondiscretionary jurisdictionapprobate and reprobateelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against the decision of an Election Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether a party who persuades an Election Tribunal to adopt a particular course of procedure can subsequently challenge the propriety of that procedure in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having induced the Tribunal to follow a specific course to determine the majority of votes, could not be permitted to challenge the propriety of that same procedure, and the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing interference. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by inviting a tribunal to adopt a procedure and later turning around to challenge it in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge the propriety of a procedure adopted by an Election Tribunal when that same procedure was suggested and persuaded by the party itself?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in its discretionary writ jurisdiction with an order of the Election Tribunal based on an arrangement agreed to by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Afghan Versus State1986 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-13
  criminal appealocular testimonycommon intentionacquittal of co-accusedmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioners, Afghan and Walidino, were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Azmat, while two co-accused were acquitted. The High Court of Sind dismissed the petitioners' appeal, upholding the conviction based on ocular testimony. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the petitioners could be sustained when the trial court had acquitted co-accused based on the same evidence, and whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of that evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically invalidate the conviction of others if the evidence against the latter remains credible. The Court affirmed that the conviction was properly based on the testimony of natural witnesses present at the scene. The key principle laid down is that the erroneous or cautious acquittal of one co-accused does not necessitate the acquittal of others whose guilt is independently established by reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of other convicted co-accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony of natural witnesses?
  • Is the acquittal of one co-accused by a trial court out of abundant caution equivalent to a finding that the evidence against them was false?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Sakhi Muhammad1986 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Versus Election Tribunal, Sargodha1986 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-31
  election petitionelectoral unitmisprint in electoral listelection disputewrit jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Abdul Wahid, challenging an election tribunal's decision. The core dispute arose from an election held in Electoral Unit No. 7, which was part of a larger electoral unit comprising units 6, 7, and 8. A misprint in the electoral list index incorrectly identified Unit No. 7 as Unit No. 8. Although the Returning Officer attempted to rectify this error through an amendment order dated 13-9-1983, the correction was issued too late, resulting in significant confusion among voters during the election process. Consequently, the election was challenged via an election petition, which was allowed. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's subsequent writ petition and found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, effectively affirming that the confusion caused by the late rectification of the electoral list justified the setting aside of the election results.

  Questions settled

  • Does a late rectification of a misprint in an electoral list that causes voter confusion constitute valid grounds for setting aside an election?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment in an election matter where the lower court's conclusion is found to be sound?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1986 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-28
  leave to appealinterim bailstatutory interpretationbanking courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the true interpretation of section 10 of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The Court granted leave to consider the statutory interpretation of the said provision and ordered that the appeal be heard at Rawalpindi before the vacation. Additionally, pending the final hearing of the appeal, the Court directed that the petitioner Muhammad Aslam be released on interim bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C. Bahawalpur.

  Questions settled

  • What is the true interpretation of section 10 of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  • Under what conditions may a petitioner be released on interim bail pending the hearing of an appeal arising from proceedings under the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Versus Muhammad Iqbal1986 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27
  mutation of saleredemption of mortgagelimitation periodpresumption of truthrevenue recordsdeclaratory suitJamabandi
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal against a judgment of the District Judge, which had decreed a declaratory suit filed by respondent No.1 regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed land was genuinely sold to the appellants contemporaneously with its redemption via a mutation attested on 10-10-1962, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the sale mutation and its subsequent incorporation in the Jamabandi carried a rebuttable presumption of truth under the relevant land revenue law, which the plaintiff-respondent failed to dislodge with credible evidence of a lease, and that the suit instituted twelve years later was indeed time-barred. The Court laid down the principle that a statutory presumption of truth attached to revenue records must be effectively rebutted by concrete evidence, and failure to do so validates the recorded transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sale mutation supported by entries in the Jamabandi carries a presumption of truth under section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Does a party challenging a revenue entry bear the burden of dislodging the statutory presumption of truth attached to it?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 for a declaratory suit challenging a sale mutation?
  • Can oral assertions of a lease override contemporaneous revenue records and mutations evidencing a sale of land?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Versus State1986 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum Versus Province of N.W.F.P.1986 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-19
  recovery of arrears of land revenuemisappropriationforest guardtax dutyleave to appealdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Forest Guard, reported that tax duty money amounting to Rs. 19,619.25 collected by him was stolen. Following a departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service and the amount was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. His departmental appeal reduced the recovery amount. His subsequent civil suit challenging the recovery was dismissed by the trial court, but decreed in his favor by the District Judge on the ground that the amount was not recoverable under the Forest Act. Upon revision, the Peshawar High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment, holding that the amount was recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner had been found guilty of misappropriating government tax funds, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amount collected as tax duty on timber transport can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act?
  • Should the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal in a case where the petitioner is found guilty of misappropriating government funds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus State1986 SCMR 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan Versus Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W. F. P1986 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26
  leave to appealpre-emptiontenancy rightsLand Reforms Regulation 1972retrospective operationrepugnancy to Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Division Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed a writ petition filed by private respondents and set aside a pre-emption decree granted in favor of the petitioner by the Collector. The petitioner claimed a preferential right of pre-emption on the basis of tenancy under clause (d) of paragraph 25(3) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The High Court reversed the lower courts' rulings based on a Shariat Bench decision declaring paragraph 25(3)(d) repugnant to Islam. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that his statutory pre-emption rights under the existing law still subsisted and could not be extinguished retrospectively, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah, which mandated amendments to the Regulation to take effect from 31-7-1986. Finding that these arguments merited detailed consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the prospective application of the law and the subsistence of tenant pre-emption rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant's right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 can be affected retrospectively before the date fixed for statutory amendment by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a pre-emption decree granted in favor of a tenant remain valid if the underlying statutory provision is subsequently declared repugnant to Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain Versus State1986 SCMR 1989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Versus Muhammad Shafi1986 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-16
  temporary injunctioncustodia legisinterlocutory ordersreceivercivil revisionprejudice at trialpossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute regarding the inheritance of land, where the petitioner claimed title through an oral will and the respondents claimed title through a registered written will. The petitioner sought a temporary injunction to maintain possession, which was initially granted by the trial court but subsequently set aside by the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision application, noting that the property was already in the custody of a court-appointed Receiver, rendering the claim of possession untenable. The Supreme Court addressed the petitioner's grievance that certain observations made by the High Court regarding possession might prejudice the trial. The Court held that observations made during interlocutory proceedings are tentative and do not bind the trial court, which must decide the suit on its own merits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that property held by a Receiver is in custodia legis, precluding the necessity for a temporary injunction. The petition was dismissed, clarifying that the trial court remains uninfluenced by the High Court's preliminary observations.

  Questions settled

  • Do observations made by a court during interlocutory proceedings prejudice the final decision of a suit?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted for property that is already in the possession of a court-appointed Receiver?
  • Is property held by a Receiver considered to be in custodia legis?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood Versus State1986 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-22
  sodomyFIR delayidentification of accusedbenefit of doubtOffence of ZinaPPC 377child victim
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on leave granted to examine whether an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report was adequately explained and whether the identification of the convicts was free from reasonable doubt. The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for entice-abduction and committing sodomy on a five-year-old child, which convictions were subsequently affirmed by the Federal Shariat Court. Upon re-examining the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the 48-hour delay in lodging the report was satisfactorily explained by local attempts at a compromise, and the identity of the appellants was established without doubt. However, due to lack of proof regarding the exact distance the victim was removed, the Court extended the benefit of doubt regarding the charge under Section 12 of the Ordinance 1979, setting aside that conviction, while maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay of 48 hours in lodging an FIR be condoned if adequately explained by efforts at an out-of-court compromise?
  • Does failure to establish the exact distance a victim was removed disentitle prosecution from securing a conviction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can the identification of accused persons by a minor victim residing in the same village be accepted without formal identification proceedings in the absence of meaningful cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor Versus Settlement Commissioner1986 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-18
  lachesdelayproperty disputewrit petitionspecial leave to appealauction transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner regarding a property dispute. The petitioner sought to challenge the refusal of a property claim that had occurred on 30-8-1960, filing the writ petition only on 12-12-1975. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches and delay, noting that the property had already been validly disposed of via auction to the respondent in the interim, and that there was no justification to disturb this transfer after such a significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings and concluded that the reasons provided for refusing to reopen such a belated transaction were legally justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no error in the High Court's decision warranting interference and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, affirming the principle that excessive delay and laches in challenging property transfers, especially where third-party rights have intervened, are fatal to a claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay when challenging a property transfer?
  • Is a court justified in refusing to disturb a property transfer made via auction after a significant lapse of time?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with High Court orders based on laches where the reasoning is legally sound?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf Versus Hafizan Mosan Atta1986 SCMR 1893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25
  enemy propertyevacuee propertyrehabilitation authoritiessettlement departmentprovisional transfer orderconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationcustodian of enemy property
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the disposal of enemy property, specifically Property No. 6-A, Begum Road, Lahore, owned by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the Government policy letter dated 21st March 1972, and whether the term "existing allottees" referred to allottees under the Rehabilitation Laws or transferees from the defunct Settlement Department holding Provisional Transfer Orders or Permanent Transfer Deeds. The Supreme Court held that the policy letter and subsequent instructions were intended to benefit those holding transfer orders from the Settlement Department rather than bare allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities. Consequently, the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property's order transferring portions of the property to rehabilitation allottees was without lawful authority. The Court dismissed the appeals and remitted the case to the Custodian of Enemy Property to determine entitlement and pass necessary orders in light of the judgment, laying down that administrative policy instruments regarding enemy property must be construed in accordance with their manifest intent without extending benefits beyond the specified categories.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the expression "existing allottees" in the Government policy letter dated 21st March 1972 includes allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities or is restricted to transferees from the Settlement Department?
  • Does an order passed by the Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property in excess of his legal authority confer indefeasible rights upon a transferee?
  • Whether the High Court, upon declaring an order of transfer of enemy property to be illegal and without lawful authority, should make a direct order of transfer or remand the case to the Custodian of Enemy Property?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Versus State1986 SCMR 1884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12
  culpable homicide not amounting to murderright of private defenceexceeding right of private defencestab woundscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed the appellant's challenge to his conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased during a sudden altercation, modifying only the benefit under Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the appellant had acted in the right of private defence and whether he had exceeded that right. The Supreme Court held that while the appellant faced an attack and possessed a right of private defence, he had brutally exceeded that right by inflicting multiple stab wounds on vital parts of the deceased's body, thereby bringing his act under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part I, while altering the substantive sentence of life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who receives simple injuries in an altercation is entitled to the complete right of private defence when causing fatal injuries to the deceased?
  • Does the infliction of multiple stab wounds on vital parts of the body by an accused facing a minor assault amount to exceeding the right of private defence under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code is sustainable when the evidence proves that the accused exceeded the right of private defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus State1986 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-10
  quashment of proceedingsautre fois acquitanti-corruptionjoinder of chargespetition for leave to appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing criminal miscellaneous applications for the quashment of proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Karachi. The petitioners, a Headmaster and a Sub-Divisional Education Officer, were implicated in six separate cases involving the fraudulent withdrawal of staff salaries using fictitious names. After being acquitted in one of the cases, the petitioners sought acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the remaining five cases, arguing that no probability of conviction existed based on identical evidence, which the High Court rejected. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners abandoned the section 265-K ground and instead contended that their subsequent trials were barred under the principle of autre fois acquit pursuant to section 403, read with section 222, of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution was allegedly bound to join all charges. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the novel legal questions regarding section 403 and section 222 were not raised before the courts below, it was premature to determine their applicability, though the petitioners remained at liberty to raise these issues before the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the ground that the accused has been acquitted in a connected case based on similar evidence?
  • Does the principle of autre fois acquit bar subsequent trials when charges are split by the prosecution?
  • Can a legal question not raised before the trial Court or the High Court be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Chand Khan Versus Akbar1986 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-02
  murder convictionculpable homicidesentence reductionpremeditated murderocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that had altered the conviction of the respondent, Akbar, from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced his sentence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment that the evidence negated premeditated murder, thereby justifying the alteration of the conviction. Upon reviewing the ocular testimony and medical evidence, the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning regarding the lack of premeditation to be ill-founded, as the accused had called the deceased out and attacked him with a knife, causing fatal injuries. The Supreme Court held that the act constituted murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code. However, the Court determined that the death penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances where the immediate cause of the attack remained unclear. Consequently, the Court restored the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, but substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life, while maintaining the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in altering a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a finding of lack of premeditation?
  • Is a death sentence mandatory for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the immediate cause of the attack is not clearly established?
  • Does the use of a lethal weapon to inflict fatal injuries on a victim called out by the accused constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Adham Versus Aate1986 SCMR 1853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25
  juvenile justicedetermination of agecriminal trialmedical evidenceconflicting medical reportsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought to be treated as a child under the Sind Children Act, 1955. He filed an application before the trial court requesting separation of his trial from co-accused, asserting he was under 16 years of age at the time of the offence. The trial court dismissed this application, and the High Court subsequently dismissed his criminal revision application. The petitioner challenged this, relying on a Police Surgeon's certificate estimating his age between 15 and 16 years, despite conflicting medical evidence from a Medical Superintendent and a Medical Board, both of which assessed his age at approximately 18 years. The core legal question is whether, in the face of conflicting medical opinions regarding the age of an accused, the opinion favouring the accused's claim of minority must be accepted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the evidence supporting the petitioner's minority status.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical opinion favouring an accused's claim of minority prevail when there are conflicting medical reports regarding the age of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to a separate trial under the Sind Children Act 1955 if they are found to be under 16 years of age?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Versus Sind Service Tribunal1986 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27
  compulsory retirementservice lawgross negligenceinefficiencymisconductmajor penaltyshow cause noticedisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a former Property Clerk. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules after the loss of firearms and ammunition from his custody. An inquiry established charges of gross negligence and inefficiency, leading to his compulsory retirement. On appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner raised legal objections, contending that gross negligence was not punishable as misconduct under the rules and that receiving a show-cause notice for dismissal but being awarded compulsory retirement prejudiced his defence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that inefficiency is an independent ground for punishment under Rule 3, and gross negligence constituted misconduct under Rule 2(4) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Court further held that where a civil servant is put on notice for a higher major penalty (dismissal), awarding a lesser major penalty (compulsory retirement) causes no prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether gross negligence can constitute misconduct under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Can a civil servant who is issued a notice for the major penalty of dismissal be lawfully awarded the lesser major penalty of compulsory retirement without prejudice to his defence?
  • Is inefficiency an independent statutory ground for imposing penalties under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Versus State1986 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Versus Muhammad Ramzan1986 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
• M. Ismail & Co. Versus Tahir Sheikh1986 SCMR 1824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus Masha Allah Jan1986 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-17
  ejectmentdefault in rentconcurrent findings of factrent appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his First Rent Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the Rent Controller's order for his ejectment from a commercial shop on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the default in rent could be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the issue stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums, which revealed a clear default for three months, and that such findings did not give rise to any question of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact in rent matters are not interfered with absent a question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Do concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default give rise to a question of law?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court in a rent matter?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Muhammad Arshad Qureshi1986 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunal jurisdictionWAPDA employeesterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictioncivil servant statusstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to adjudicate appeals by WAPDA employees whose services were terminated under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether subsection (1-C) of Section 17, which purports to oust the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, and commissions, also excludes the Federal Service Tribunal from reviewing termination orders passed by WAPDA. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal retains exclusive jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that subsection (1-B) of Section 17, read with Article 212 of the Constitution, established the Service Tribunal as the exclusive forum for civil servants, including WAPDA employees. Subsection (1-C) was interpreted not as an ouster of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction, but as a legislative measure to clarify the ouster of other forums (such as labor courts) that had improperly assumed jurisdiction over these matters. The principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal remains the sole competent forum for adjudicating terms and conditions of service for WAPDA employees, and its jurisdiction is not affected by the exclusionary language of subsection (1-C).

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act 1958 oust the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to hear appeals regarding the termination of WAPDA employees?
  • Are WAPDA employees considered civil servants for the purposes of the Federal Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Mumtaz Hussain1986 SCMR 1701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-27
  local bodies electiondisqualification of candidategovernment servantvotes thrown awayelection tribunalrunner-up declared electedelectoral roll
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a constitutional petition regarding local bodies elections. The appellant, Abdul Ghani, secured the highest number of votes in Ward No. 30 of Karachi, but his election was declared void by the Election Tribunal because he was a government school teacher at the time of the election, which disqualified him under the relevant law. The Tribunal declared the runner-up, Mumtaz Hussain, as the successful candidate. The core legal question was whether the appellant's disqualification was notorious enough to render the votes cast in his favour 'thrown away', thereby entitling the candidate with the next highest votes to be declared successful, or whether a fresh election ought to have been held. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the appellant was still in government service on the polling day and the voters of the rural community could be deemed to have known him as a teacher, the votes cast for him were rightly treated as thrown away. The key principle established is that where a candidate's disqualification is notorious and known to the electorate, votes cast for him are wasted, allowing the runner-up to be declared elected without necessitating a fresh election.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disqualification of a successful candidate renders the votes cast in his favour as thrown away so as to declare the candidate with the next highest number of votes successful?
  • Does a candidate remain in the service of the Government for the purpose of election disqualification if his resignation has not been accepted by the date of polling?
  • Whether the voters in a rural community can be deemed to have notice of a candidate's profession as a school teacher despite a different profession being recorded in the electoral roll?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Versus Settlement Commissioner1986 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-04
  constitutional petitionabatementlegal representativesCivil Procedure Codecondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against an order of the High Court refusing to set aside the abatement of a constitutional petition and dismissing the same as time-barred upon the death of the contesting respondent. The core legal question examined was whether the penal provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the provisions regarding abatement and the necessity of bringing legal representatives on record within time do apply to constitutional petitions, as effective orders cannot be passed in the absence of necessary parties. Finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion on questions of fact regarding the date of knowledge of the death, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that proceedings abate if legal representatives are not impleaded within the prescribed time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penal provisions of Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code apply to proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can an effective order of quashment be made in a constitutional petition in the absence of necessary parties who have passed away?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion of the High Court refusing to set aside an abatement based on findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Versus Hayat Muhammad1986 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Versus Sarfraz Bani1986 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Rizvi Versus Pak Army Furnishing Stores1986 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18
  ejectmentreconstructionbuilding planrent appealbuilding control regulationstenant protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the eviction of tenants from a shop premises for reconstruction. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment, but the High Court affirmed the order while imposing a conditional restriction that the tenants need not be vacated if the building plan's suspension was not withdrawn. During the appeal, subsequent developments occurred, including the extension of the building plan's validity by the Karachi Building Control Authority and a High Court judgment declaring the relevant Building Control Regulations ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the restriction imposed by the High Court stood removed due to the extension of the building plan, enabling the landlord to execute the ejectment order, while leaving open the validity of conditions imposed in the extension letter for appropriate future proceedings. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller or High Court can impose conditional restrictions on the execution of an ejectment order based on the suspension of a building plan?
  • Does the Karachi Building Control Authority have the power to impose pre-conditions relating to tenant agreements on the renewal or sanction of a building plan?
  • What are the rights and protections available to a tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 upon eviction for reconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Parvez Butt Versus Muhammad Sultan1986 SCMR 1654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Versus Asmat Ara1986 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-27
  evictionrented landpreliminary issuebona fide requirementreconstructionremandabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by a landlady against her tenant for the reconstruction of the demised property. The tenant raised a preliminary objection that the plot was not a rented land and contested the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller decided the preliminary issue against the tenant and, by the same order, summarily directed eviction due to the tenant's contumacious conduct in challenging jurisdiction, bypassing a trial on the merits regarding the landlady's bona fide requirement. The High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, endorsing the view that the tenant's frivolous plea forfeited his right to contest on merits. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Rent Controller is statutorily obligated to be satisfied through evidence that the premises are reasonably and in good faith required for reconstruction, notwithstanding the tenant's conduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower orders and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller can order eviction upon deciding a preliminary issue against the tenant without adjudicating upon the landlord's bona fide requirement for reconstruction?
  • Is a Rent Controller statutorily required to be satisfied under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, regarding the landlord's good faith before ordering eviction?
  • Does a tenant's frivolous objection to jurisdiction disentitle them from a trial on the merits of an eviction petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus State1986 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus State1986 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-31
  criminal petitionleave to appealappreciation of evidenceparity of sentenceocular testimonydouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising from a trial court judgment regarding a double murder and murderous assault. The trial court convicted six individuals, sentencing them to death and imprisonment, while acquitting others. The High Court subsequently acquitted two of the six convicted individuals but maintained the convictions of the remaining four, reducing the death sentences of three to life imprisonment while confirming the death sentence of the fourth. The petitioners challenged these findings, arguing that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, particularly regarding the parity of roles among the accused and the reliance on solitary ocular testimony. The complainant also challenged the acquittal of the two individuals by the High Court, asserting the evidence against them was identical to that of the convicted accused. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by both sides warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court adhered to established principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of firearms from multiple accused, without matching ballistics, constitute sufficient corroboration of ocular testimony?
  • Can a court maintain the conviction of some co-accused while acquitting others when the evidence against all is identical?
  • Is it appropriate to maintain a death sentence for one accused while reducing the sentences of co-accused to life imprisonment when the roles attributed to them are substantially the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sultan Khan Versus Sanin Kausar1986 SCMR 1591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
• Afzal Sattar Versus Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore1986 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Raza Versus Federation of Pakistan1986 SCMR 1502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-28
  civil reviewpopulation programmestatutory interpretationtemporary employeesservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the interpretation of Ordinance No. XIV of 1981 regarding the service status of certain employees. The core legal question is whether the Ordinance applied exclusively to employees whose appointments were made by the Council between April 3, 1977, and June 30, 1977, or whether it encompassed other temporary employees recruited on or after April 30, 1977. The Court held that the clear definitions of 'Council', 'Boards', and 'employee' under section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981 brought all temporary or ad hoc employees appointed in the Population Programme on or after April 30, 1977, within the purview of the Ordinance, regardless of whether their prior appointments stemmed from earlier years. The key principle laid down is that statutory definitions within a special enactment must be read comprehensively to determine the scope of applicability, superseding restricted interpretations advanced by individual litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Does Ordinance No. XIV of 1981 cover employees appointed prior to 1977 who were inducted into the Population Programme on a temporary basis after April 30, 1977?
  • Whether the definitions of employee, Council, and Board under section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981 include temporary and ad hoc employees appointed on or after April 30, 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus State1986 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-29
  ZinaabductionconsentHudood lawscriminal appealprosecutrix testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal appeals against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had upheld the conviction of Muhammad Rafiq under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and enhanced the sentence of Muhammad Siddique for an offense under Section 11 of the same Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the prosecutrix was abducted forcibly or was a consenting party, given the evidence regarding her age and conduct. Upon reviewing the prosecutrix's testimony, the Supreme Court observed that she had ample opportunity to escape, did not raise an alarm in a populated area, and remained in the accused's house for eight days without attempting to return to her parents. Furthermore, medical evidence established her age as 18 years. The Court held that the evidence indicated the prosecutrix was a consenting party, thereby negating the charge of abduction. Consequently, the Court acquitted Muhammad Siddique of the abduction charge and converted Muhammad Rafiq's conviction to the lesser offense of Zina under Section 10(2), reducing his sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a prosecutrix to raise an alarm or attempt escape when opportunity exists indicate consent in Zina cases?
  • Can a conviction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be sustained if the prosecutrix is found to be a consenting party?
  • Is a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 sustainable if the element of force is negated by the finding of consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Versus Ghulam Nabi1986 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Versus Karam Hussain1986 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Versus Bhag Din1986 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Versus Ghulam Haider1986 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Hassan Muhammad1986 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
• Crescent and Star Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus Chief Settlement Commissioner1986 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-07
  vested rightsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertylachesconstitutional petitionadministrative lawDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by a claimant (respondent No. 4) regarding the transfer of a property plot. The core legal question was whether the respondent had acquired a vested right in the property despite the subsequent cancellation of her transfer application by the Settlement authorities and the subsequent transfer of the property to other parties. The Supreme Court held that because the Settlement authorities failed to contest the factual allegations and because the necessary transfer documents (appendices) had been duly prepared and signed by the competent officer, the respondent’s entitlement had matured. The Court affirmed that once these formalities were completed, the respondent acquired a vested right in the property, and subsequent administrative actions to cancel her entitlement were without lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court rejected arguments regarding laches and res judicata, noting the respondent had continuously and diligently pursued her legal remedies through multiple proceedings. The principle established is that where administrative formalities for property transfer are completed and signed, a vested right is created, which cannot be arbitrarily cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Does the preparation and signing of transfer appendices by a competent settlement officer create a vested right in the property for the applicant?
  • Can administrative authorities cancel a property transfer entitlement after the necessary formalities and inquiries have been completed and documented?
  • Does the continuous pursuit of legal remedies through various courts and petitions negate a claim of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Industries Ltd. Versus Government of Sind1986 SCMR 1294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-09Read full judgment →
• Walla Versus A. C., Kasur1986 SCMR 1266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-11
  Beshi landallotmentRehabilitation CommissionerMukhbari applicationleave to appealsettlement hierarchyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of 'Beshi' (excess) land in District Lahore. The petitioner, having received 25% excess land, challenged the High Court's dismissal of his appeal against the denial of this excess land by Settlement Authorities. The petitioner argued that the allotment was authorized by specific Rehabilitation Commissioner instructions and disputed the validity of admissions recorded against him. Furthermore, he contended that the respondent who initiated the 'Mukhbari' proceedings was an imposter. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's primary factual contention—regarding the timely filing and transfer of his claim form—was not raised or argued before the High Court and thus could not be entertained at the leave-to-appeal stage. Regarding the admissions, the Court found no error in the High Court's reliance on the petitioner's recorded statements. The Court held that the legitimacy of the respondent's status was immaterial, as resumed land would only be allocated to those legally entitled to it. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a factual contention not raised or argued before the High Court be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Is the legitimacy of a Mukhbari applicant material if the resumed land is to be allocated to those legally entitled to it?
  • Does the High Court err in relying on recorded admissions of a petitioner in settlement proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor Versus State1986 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-22
  sudden quarrelculpable homicidemurderException IV to Section 300 PPCgambling disputemitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question revolves around whether the sudden fight during gambling, lacking pre-meditation and involving injuries on both sides, attracts Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby warranting a reduction of the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel and mutual attack without pre-design, and that the combatants were on friendly terms prior to the dispute. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304(1), reduced the life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, altered the Section 307 convictions to Section 308, and set aside the conviction under Section 449. The key legal principle laid down is that where a homicide occurs during a sudden fight without pre-meditation, and injuries are sustained by both parties indicating a lack of undue advantage or cruel manner, Exception IV to Section 300 applies to mitigate the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sudden fight arising during gambling without pre-meditation attracts Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 be altered to Section 304(1) when injuries are sustained by both the accused and the complainant party during a sudden altercation?
  • Is a conviction under Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when the evidence on record fails to establish the requisite ingredients of house-trespass for committing an offense punishable with death?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman Alias Amanullah Manu Versus State1986 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-15
  Zina-bil-jabrquantum of sentencemitigation of sentencecompensationHudood lawscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing Zina-bil-jabr. Leave to appeal was specifically granted to examine the quantum of sentence, focusing on whether the highest sentence of rigorous imprisonment was appropriate and whether the gravity of the offence and its varying shades should be considered in sentencing. The Supreme Court observed that the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were minor and caused by the blunt side of a weapon with minimal force, distinguishing this case from graver instances involving severe bodily harm or vulnerable victims. Holding that the maximum sentence of 25 years was excessive for the given circumstances, the Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to five years, maintained the 20 stripes, and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 to be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix. The key principle laid down is that sentencing under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, must reflect the relative gravity, aggravating circumstances, and degree of force used in each individual case rather than automatically attracting the maximum statutory punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the highest sentence of rigorous imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is it relevant to consider the question of the gravity of the offence and its different shades when awarding the highest sentence for an offence?
  • Does the use of minimal force and minor injuries in the commission of Zina-bil-jabr warrant a reduction in the sentence of rigorous imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Versus Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad1986 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-14
  higher postpay and allowancesperiodical incrementsgovernment servantregular promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition filed by the Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad against Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad. The core legal question is whether a government servant who is not regularly promoted, but is qualified and performs the functions of a higher post, is eligible to draw the financial benefits of that higher post, including pay with periodical increments. Relying on its previous ruling in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1985, the court held that a qualified government servant performing duties of a higher post without regular promotion is indeed entitled to draw the pay and periodical increments attached to the higher post. The court laid down the principle that the performance of higher duties by a qualified civil servant entitles them to corresponding remuneration and increments. Consequently, the petition was found to be without substance and was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a government servant who performs the functions of a higher post without regular promotion eligible to draw the pay and periodical increments of that higher post?
  • Does a qualified civil servant performing duties of a higher post have the right to claim the financial benefits associated with it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1986 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus State1986 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-24
  post-arrest bailcriminal appealrecovery of weaponfurther enquiryHudood Ordinancebail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which had refused to grant post-arrest bail to the accused/appellants charged under Section 17(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The accused were charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. and attributed an effective role in the commission of the offence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that their connection to the offence was not prima facie established, specifically noting that no weapon was recovered directly from their possession, as the pistol in question was discovered in a drain by a witness. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal. The Court held that the circumstances of the case warranted the concession of bail, effectively determining that the appellants' guilt was not so clearly established at this stage as to preclude bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and admitted the accused to bail, subject to the provision of surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a direct recovery of a weapon from the accused entitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a criminal petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail?
  • Is a case of further enquiry established when the prosecution fails to connect the accused to the recovery of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus State1986 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus State1986 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-15
  criminal petitionleave to appealnarcoticsProhibition Orderappreciation of evidencepolice witnessesrecovery of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court affirming the petitioner's conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for possession of contraband charas, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding police recovery and the evidentiary value of the Chemical Examiner's Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact based on credible police testimony regarding the recovery of narcotics warrant no interference, as no mala fides or motive for false implication was established, and the contentions regarding non-production of public witnesses pertain strictly to factual appreciation. The key principle laid down is that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony, in the absence of proven ill-will or motive to falsely implicate, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under narcotics laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of narcotics under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Does the absence of public witnesses from a bus during a search render the recovery of contraband doubtful?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Federal Shariat Court regarding the appreciation of evidence be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rabim Alias Raheema Versus State1986 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-12
  murderself-defencesentence commutationchance encountercriminal appealappreciation of evidencedeath penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant acted in the exercise of the right of self-defence or committed intentional murder, and whether the capital sentence remained appropriate given the circumstances of the encounter. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rejecting the plea of self-defence. The Court reasoned that the appellant inflicted nineteen injuries, including several after the deceased had fallen, which demonstrated an intent to kill rather than a defensive act. However, noting the incident was a chance encounter and that prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the involvement of the acquitted co-accused, the Court found the exact genesis of the altercation unclear. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle established is that the right of self-defence is unavailable where an accused inflicts excessive, brutal injuries on a victim who is already incapacitated, and that appellate courts may commute sentences when the prosecution's narrative of the incident's origin is ambiguous or exaggerated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of excessive injuries after an adversary has fallen negate a plea of self-defence?
  • Can an appellate court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case involving a chance encounter?
  • Is the presence of a single injury on an accused sufficient to establish a valid claim of self-defence against a murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• The Water and Power Development Authority through Its Chairman Versus Muhammad Yousaf1986 SCMR 1012 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus State1985 SCMR 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-18
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestcriminal trialFirst Information Reportleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, who had not surrendered to the police, was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the incriminating nature of the First Information Report and the circumstances of the alleged occurrence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the determination of the petitioner's innocence or guilt is a matter to be adjudicated during the formal inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or at the subsequent trial. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is not appropriate where the accusation is supported by the First Information Report and the merits of the case require a full trial for resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the First Information Report implicates the accused in an occurrence witnessed in broad daylight?
  • Should the question of an accused's innocence or guilt be determined at the pre-arrest bail stage or during the trial?
  • Does the failure to surrender to the police affect the consideration of a pre-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Versus State1985 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04
  murdercompromiseBadal Sulahreduction of sentencedeath sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased over a marriage dispute. The core legal question was whether a compromise (Badal Sulah) between the legal heirs of the deceased and the convict could be accepted to mitigate the sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the compromise between the parties was fair and acceptable, leading to the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the heirs of a victim and an offender in a murder case can be considered by the court for the reduction of a sentence from death to life imprisonment, subject to the payment of agreed compensation and fine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the legal heirs of a deceased and a convict be accepted in a murder case to reduce a death sentence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment based on a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus Province of West Pakistan1985 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-16
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisition chargesreference to courtlocus standiPunjab Town Improvement Actmarket valueultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the acquisition of land under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 for a development scheme in Rawalpindi. The core legal questions were whether the Provincial Government possessed the locus standi to make a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the acquisition was intended for a local authority, and whether the landowners were entitled to the 15% compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government retains the authority to seek a reference under Section 18(3) even for acquisitions benefiting local authorities, as the legislative intent was to centralize control over such references. Furthermore, the Court held that the 15% compulsory acquisition charges are mandatory under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Court affirmed that previous modifications in the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 excluding these charges were ultra vires, as established in Province of West Pakistan v. Salim Ullah. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellants the additional 15% compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Provincial Government have the locus standi to make a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the land is acquired for a local authority?
  • Are the 15% compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory for land acquired under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922?
  • Does the deletion of the words 'or a local authority or a company' in Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by the 1958 amendment preclude the Provincial Government from seeking a reference for such acquisitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus State1985 SCMR 661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Versus State1985 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonymedical evidence discrepancymitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested primarily on ocular testimony and motive, alleging that the appellant emerged from ambush and inflicted fatal hatchet blows on the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number and sequence of injuries were sufficient to discredit the eye-witnesses and render it an unwitnessed crime. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies and an honest error in estimating the number of rapid blows do not detract from the otherwise natural and credible testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene was undoubted. However, considering the appellant's young age and emotional state in seeking revenge for the prior murder of his uncle, the court held that the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that minor inconsistencies or exaggerations in recounting rapid blows during a sudden assault do not vitiate otherwise reliable ocular testimony, and that youthful impulsiveness in retaliatory killings can constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries are sufficient to discredit eye-witnesses?
  • Does an honest error by a witness in describing the exact sequence or count of rapid blows during a sudden assault vitiate their testimony?
  • Whether youthful age and emotional impulsiveness in taking revenge for a prior murder constitute mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Versus State1985 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19
  fugitive from justiceright of audiencecriminal appealescape from custodydismissal of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of an appeal filed by the appellant, Nazar Hussain. During the hearing, the court was informed by the appellant's counsel, and subsequently confirmed by the Jail Superintendent, that the appellant had escaped from custody along with other prisoners and his whereabouts remained unknown. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether a criminal appellant who has escaped from lawful custody and become a fugitive from justice retains the right of audience before the court. Holding that an escaped convict is a fugitive from justice who has forfeited the right of audience, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that a fugitive from justice cannot be heard by the court while maintaining their defiance of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appellant who escapes from jail forfeit their right of audience before the court?
  • What is the legal consequence of an appellant becoming a fugitive from justice during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ali Quraishi Versus Municipal Corporation, Multan1985 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-28
  arbitration awardrule of the courtnotice of filing awardservice on corporationreasons for awardmisconduct of arbitratorconstruction contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an arbitration award made the rule of the court and directed the arbitrator to give a fresh award. The appellant had undertaken construction contracts for the Multan Municipal Corporation, leading to a dispute referred to arbitration under section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator made an award in favor of the appellant, which was filed in court, and notices were issued. The trial court held the Corporation's objections to be time-barred and made the award the rule of the court. The High Court allowed the Corporation's appeal, holding that service was not in accordance with Order XXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and that the arbitrator failed to give reasons or decide the issue of contract rescission. The Supreme Court held that formal notice requirements under Order XXIX are satisfied where parties have constructive or actual knowledge and appear through counsel, that an arbitrator is not bound to decide unreferred questions regarding contract rescission, and that courts must lean toward upholding arbitration awards rather than setting them aside for latent errors. The appeal was accepted and the trial court's order restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a formal written notice of the filing of an arbitration award served in strict conformity with Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory when the parties have actual or constructive knowledge and appear through counsel?
  • Under what circumstances can an arbitration award be remitted or set aside by the court under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Is an arbitrator required to give findings on the legality of the rescission or abandonment of a contract when no such specific dispute was referred to arbitration and the claim is restricted to actual work done?
  • Can an appellate court scrutinize an arbitration award to discover latent errors or sit in judgment over it as a court of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Holy Family Hospital Versus Government of Sind1985 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus State1985 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-15
  criminal appealleave to appealsentence commutationdeath penaltyocular testimonymurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Sadiq and Mian Khan against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld their convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 and Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Mehdi and a murderous assault on a prosecution witness. The trial court had sentenced Mian Khan to death and Muhammad Sadiq to life imprisonment, along with fines. The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecution's case, which relied on ocular testimony from three witnesses, including the injured party. While the petitioners' counsel failed to challenge the merits of the conviction, the Supreme Court examined the sentencing aspect in light of the motive presented by the prosecution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition regarding Muhammad Sadiq, thereby maintaining his conviction and sentence. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider whether the death sentence awarded to Mian Khan should be commuted to imprisonment for life, given the circumstances surrounding the motive for the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reconsidering the quantum of sentence?
  • Is a conviction based on ocular testimony sustainable when the motive for the crime is established by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem-Ul-Haq Khan Versus State1985 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-08
  criminal appealmurderattempted murderappreciation of evidencedefence versionbenefit of doubtright of private defencerival versions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction of four appellants for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question examined by the Court was whether the principles of appreciation of the defence version in criminal cases were properly applied by the courts below, particularly in light of rival versions, serious prior enmity, injuries sustained by the accused, and delayed First Information Report registration. The Supreme Court held that the defence version was plausible and created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative, noting that the accused had sustained numerous injuries (including sharp-edged wounds) that were inadequately explained by the prosecution and misconstrued by the lower courts. Applying the principle laid down in Safdar Ali v. Crown, the Court ruled that if there is a reasonable possibility that the defence version might be true, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard to be applied by a court when evaluating rival versions presented by the prosecution and the defence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the presence of numerous unexplained injuries on the accused person cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative of a one-sided attack?
  • At what point is an accused person entitled to the benefit of the doubt arising from a plausible defence version?
  • How does a delayed First Information Report impact a criminal case involving serious prior enmity between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras Versus Shah Fakhar Zaman1985 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →