Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
- Altaf Hussain Versus State1984 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Sabir Ali. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence concerning motive, medical evidence regarding injuries on the appellant, the recovery of the crime weapon, and the possibility of mistaken identity due to darkness at the time of the occurrence. Upon a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established a strong motive arising from previous enmity, that the injuries on the appellant were satisfactorily explained by the arresting officer and not attributed to the complainant party, that the recovery of the weapon was duly proved, and that the time of the incident (6 p.m. on a well-lit main road) did not preclude proper identification by eye-witnesses. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's judgment confirming a death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrants interference upon reappraisal of evidence regarding motive, recovery, and identification?
- Does the existence of injuries on the person of the accused, when explained by the arresting officer and not attributed to the complainant party, support a plea of self-defence?
- Can the identification of an assailant by eye-witnesses at 6 p.m. on a main road be discarded on the assumption of pitch darkness?
- Tayyaba Khanam Versus Chairman, Federal Land Commission1984 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali Versus State1984 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the evidentiary value of testimony provided by a witness, Muhammad Aslam, and to address discrepancies regarding the timing of the First Information Report and the recovery of the weapon. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular witnesses, the reliability of a weapon recovery made without independent local witnesses, and whether the FIR was recorded at the spot rather than the police station. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and credible, noting the absence of prior enmity. The Court further held that the recovery of the blood-stained knife was reliable despite the lack of independent attestation, as the investigating officer's testimony was straightforward and credible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The judgment reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies in police statements or the absence of independent witnesses for recoveries do not automatically invalidate prosecution evidence if the testimony is otherwise consistent and reliable.
Questions settled- Does the non-examination of independent local witnesses for a recovery memo automatically render the recovery of a weapon unreliable?
- Can discrepancies in the testimony of a witness regarding minor details affect the overall credibility of ocular evidence?
- Is a conviction sustainable based on ocular testimony where there is no prior enmity between the witnesses and the accused?
- Muhammad Latif Versus State1984 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Latif against the dismissal of his murder appeal by the High Court, which maintained his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eyewitness testimony and corroboration through weapon recovery in a murder trial. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of independent, uninimical eyewitnesses is reliable and sufficient for conviction even without corroboration, though corroborative evidence in the form of a blood-stained chhurri was also present in this case. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the guilt of the petitioner was duly proven.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of independent and uninimical eyewitnesses can be relied upon for conviction without corroboration?
- Is the recovery of a blood-stained weapon considered sufficient corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
- Sabir Hussain Versus State1984 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain Shah Versus Secretary, Establishment Division1984 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- Amna Versus Iind Additional District Judge, Hyderabad1983 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an order regarding the custody of two minors. The petitioner had originally filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the children. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the application. When the matter reached the High Court, it was observed that both children had attained the age of majority during the pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, the High Court held that the constitutional petition had become infructuous, as no appointment of a guardian could be made for individuals who are no longer minors. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the petitioner's own pleadings confirmed the children's ages. The Court affirmed that where the subject matter of a custody dispute—the minority of the children—ceases to exist, the underlying legal proceedings become infructuous, rendering any further adjudication an exercise in futility. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does a petition for the custody of minors under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 become infructuous if the minors attain the age of majority during the proceedings?
- Can a court adjudicate on the merits of a constitutional petition if the underlying cause of action has ceased to exist?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the age of minors based on the petitioner's own pleadings binding on the petitioner in subsequent appeals?
- Hadi Hassan Jafry Versus Additional Settlement, Commissioner1983 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ibrahim Versus Ilam Din1983 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed by leave of the Court, challenged a judgment of the High Court dated 23-11-1973 concerning a property dispute in Sialkot City. The core legal question was whether the property bearing No. 3/413, situated on Hakim Khadim Ali Road, constituted merely a 'deori' (an entrance or vestibule) or a separate shop. The High Court had previously declared the property to be a separate shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the municipal records dating back to 1942. The Court found that the property had been treated and assessed as a separate shop even prior to the Partition of the subcontinent. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its determination. The appeal was dismissed as being without merit, affirming the status of the property as a separate shop based on historical municipal assessment records.
Questions settled- Whether the property bearing No. 3/413, Hakim Khadim Ali Road, Sialkot City, should be classified as a 'deori' or a separate shop?
- Can municipal records from 1942 be used to determine the status of a property in a settlement dispute?
- Muhammad Nazir Versus Mubammad Shafi1983 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal, concerning the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner contended that the Court overlooked his acquired rights under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, promulgated in July 1959, which existed prior to the property's disposal on January 29, 1960, and before the issuance of a subsequent Press Note dated May 3, 1960. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim transfer rights under Settlement Scheme No. I when the property had already been disposed of and the contention was not raised in the initial appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that it was doubtful whether any rights accrued to the petitioner under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, and furthermore, the petitioner had failed to press this contention in the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the disposal order of January 29, 1960.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner seek review of a judgment based on a contention that was not pressed in the initial appeal before the lower settlement authorities?
- Does the subsequent issuance of a Press Note affect the validity of a property disposal that was completed prior to its publication?
- Muhammad Aslam Versus State1983 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam against his conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 10 of the said Ordinance for committing zina-bil-jabr with a 12/13-year-old girl, Mst. Azra, and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, stripes, and a fine. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court modified the conviction to Section 10(2) of the Ordinance, holding that the victim was a consenting party, reduced the imprisonment to five years, increased the stripes, and set aside the fine. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction and the quantum of sentence where the minor victim was a consenting party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was rightly convicted of zina with a consenting minor and that the reduced sentence was not excessive, but granted the petitioner the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the computation of his sentence. The petition was otherwise dismissed, establishing the principle regarding sentence computation and the application of Hudood laws in cases involving minor consenting parties.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance is sustainable when the minor victim is found to be a consenting party?
- Can a petitioner be granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the computation of sentence in a Hudood case?
- Whether the sentence of stripes and imprisonment awarded under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance is excessive under the circumstances?
- Mahmood Versus State1983 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali Khan Versus Muhammad Ibrahim1983 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Versus Deputy Commissioner1983 SCMR 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- Hirjina & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. Versus Islamic Republic of Pakistan1983 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the levy of excise duty on services provided by hotels, restaurants, and bars in relation to alcoholic liquor, arguing that under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the levy constitutes a duty on 'alcoholic liquor' itself. They contended that such a levy is prohibited by the bar contained in Entry 43(b) of the Third Schedule of the 1962 Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioners questioned the constitutional validity of imposing excise duty on services rendered by these establishments. The Supreme Court observed that the issues raised regarding the constitutional competence of the levy and the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions were of general public importance requiring an authoritative adjudication. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the petitions, and directed that the appeals be heard on the existing record, while permitting parties to file additional documents. The Court also issued notice regarding the petitioners' request for interim relief.
Questions settled- Does the levy of excise duty on services rendered by hotels, restaurants, and bars in relation to alcoholic liquor constitute a duty on the liquor itself?
- Is the levy of excise duty on services provided by hotels, restaurants, and bars constitutionally permissible under the 1962 Constitution?
- Manzoor Ahmad Versus Abdul Haque1983 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute over a shop transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department, where the respondent filed an ejectment application against the predecessor of the petitioners, Jan Muhammad. The Rent Controller determined that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and ordered the deposit of tentative rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On appeal, the Additional District Judge dismissed the ejectment application after finding no such relationship existed. The Lahore High Court allowed the respondent's revision petition and remanded the case. The core legal question is whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant and an order for tentative rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that section 15(1) of the Ordinance is restrictive, limiting appeals to specific final orders, and that incidental or interlocutory orders regarding the existence of tenancy are not appealable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, leaving the Rent Controller to proceed with the case.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is competent against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller determining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does section 15(1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 limit the right of appeal to specific final orders?
- Is an order directing the deposit of tentative rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 appealable?
- Nazir Ahmad Versus Settlement Commissioner, Multan1983 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair Versus Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore1983 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Shah Versus Agha Hussain Naqvi,1983 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- Wahajul Hasnain Rizvi Versus Zabid Hussain1983 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Versus Additional Commissioner1983 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad Versus Dadu Khan1983 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court concerning the legality of the transfer of an open plot. The petitioner contended that the plot was validly transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 4 on June 15, 1960, under para 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with Settlement Scheme VI, and therefore was not available for subsequent transfer by auction in 1961. The core legal question is whether the earlier transfer of the plot to a local was legal and whether it could be ignored as an illegal transfer to uphold the subsequent auction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the legality of the initial transfer require further consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
Questions settled- Whether an open plot could be lawfully transferred to a local under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a prior transfer of a property be ignored as illegal to validate a subsequent auction?
- Muhammad Sarwar Versus Federal Government of Pakistan1983 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- Nizam Din Versus Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala1983 SCMR 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the convening of a no-confidence motion meeting against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman counts towards the statutory six-month interval required before a subsequent motion can be moved against a successor Chairman under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory restriction regarding the six-month interval is personal to the Chairman against whom the motion is moved. The Court clarified that the 'date of assumption of office' referenced in the statute refers specifically to the incumbent Chairman, not their predecessor. Consequently, the interval calculation for a no-confidence motion against a successor Chairman begins from the date that specific individual assumed office, rather than being tethered to the history of motions moved against previous officeholders. This interpretation prevents a successor from facing a motion before completing their own six-month tenure.
Questions settled- Does a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman count towards the six-month interval required before a motion can be moved against a successor Chairman?
- From what date is the six-month period for a no-confidence motion calculated under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a successor Chairman face a no-confidence motion before completing six months in office?
- Alima Ahmad Versus Amir Ali1983 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a grant of Special Leave to Appeal to resolve a conflict of judicial view between two previous Benches of the Court regarding whether all terms of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force despite the termination of that agreement by efflux of time. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court noted that the earlier conflicting decision rendered in Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah was delivered by a Bench consisting of four Judges. Consequently, the Court held that an authoritative pronouncement on this core legal question requires consideration by a larger Bench. The hearing of the case was accordingly adjourned, and the file was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders to constitute a larger Bench.
Questions settled- Do all terms of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force in spite of termination of that agreement by efflux of time?
- Is an authoritative pronouncement required from a larger Bench when a conflict of view exists between previous Benches of the Supreme Court?
- Daulat Ali Versus Barguzida Muntizar1983 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1960 transfer order and a 1967 Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The petitioner's initial writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and subsequent restoration applications were also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a fresh writ petition, which the High Court dismissed in limine, reasoning that it was an attempt to review the previous dismissal order and that the challenge was barred by laches. The core legal question was whether a fresh writ petition is maintainable after a previous one is dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition due to delay. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while a fresh petition might be procedurally permissible under Order IX, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction due to the significant delay in challenging the long-standing transfer order and P.T.D. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Is a fresh writ petition maintainable after a previous writ petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction on the grounds of laches despite the procedural availability of a fresh petition?
- Rehmat Khan Versus Sardar Bibi1983 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ali Versus State1983 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad Versus State1983 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein the appellant, Nazar Muhammad, challenged his conviction and death sentences under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Hazur Ahmad, along with convictions under Sections 307, 452, 149, and 148, P.P.C. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction based on the appraisal of evidence and the legal effect of a subsequent compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant was maintained upon a proper appraisal of the evidence and found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding guilt. However, upon presentation of a valid compromise and affidavits confirming the receipt of Khunbaha by the legal heirs of the deceased, the Court exercised its discretion to alter the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the fine and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of guilt based on proper appraisal of evidence in a murder case?
- Can a compromise effected between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be extended to a convict whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment?
- Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab Labore Versus Muhammad Arif1983 SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din Versus State1983 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Safdar Versus State1983 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed Versus State1983 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the appellant, a former Kanungo, from service. The appellant was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings where an Enquiry Officer found certain charges proved. The core legal question was whether the appellant was prejudiced in his defense because he was allegedly not provided with a copy of the enquiry report prior to the show-cause notice. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the Collector had explicitly ordered the issuance of the show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. Furthermore, the case diary indicated that the appellant had participated in numerous hearings without ever raising a grievance regarding the non-receipt of the report. The Court held that, based on the official record and the presumption of regularity in official acts, it must be presumed that the enquiry report was duly supplied. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contention that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to supply a copy of an enquiry report to a civil servant during disciplinary proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice?
- Can a court presume that an official order directing the supply of an enquiry report was complied with in the absence of an objection on the record?
- Does the absence of a grievance regarding the non-receipt of an enquiry report in the case diary preclude a later claim of prejudice?
- Ghulam Ali Versus State1983 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was convicted for the theft of a mosque clock and sentenced to the amputation of his right hand. The core legal questions raised concern the definition of 'hirz' (custody) regarding the stolen property, the competency of the prosecution witnesses to testify under Islamic law, the sufficiency of the number of witnesses required to prove the offence, and the proper valuation of the stolen item relative to the 'nisab' threshold, specifically considering potential depreciation. The Supreme Court, finding these issues merit further examination, granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned order regarding the amputation of the petitioner's hand pending the final adjudication of the appeal. The Court further directed that the stolen property and relevant records be produced at the hearing, requiring the attendance of the appellant and the witness who assessed the clock's value.
Questions settled- Whether a stolen object is considered to be in the 'hirz' of witnesses who were not its custodians?
- What is the required number of competent witnesses to prove an offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- How should the value of stolen property be calculated relative to the 'nisab' threshold, specifically regarding depreciation since the date of purchase?
- Are the prosecution witnesses competent to depose against an accused in a case involving Hudood punishments?
- Misri Khan Versus Kala Khan1983 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges, overturning their convictions by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in discarding the prosecution's evidence—specifically the recovery of crime weapons—on the grounds that the attesting witness was related to the complainant and that the recovery occurred on the last day of police remand. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning for rejecting this corroborative evidence required further examination to ensure that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that while ocular testimony in cases involving bitter enmity requires independent corroboration, the rejection of recovery evidence based solely on the witness's relationship to the complainant or the timing of the recovery must be carefully scrutinized by the appellate court to prevent a failure of justice.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of an attesting witness to the complainant party automatically render their testimony regarding the recovery of crime weapons unreliable?
- Can the recovery of crime weapons be discarded solely because it occurred on the last day of police remand?
- Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony in cases involving bitter enmity between parties?
- Executive Engineer, Peshawar Versus Tour Muhammad1983 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir Versus State1983 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
- Jalal Shah Versus Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore1983 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute concerning evacuee land originally belonging to Hindus who left for India upon Partition. The petitioners claimed ownership through adverse possession exceeding twelve years prior to March 1947. After various proceedings before the Deputy Custodian, Custodian, and the High Court—which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition and held that section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1957 did not protect persons in unauthorized possession—the petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the proper appreciation of revenue records regarding adverse possession and the correct interpretation of section 3 of Ordinance XII of 1957 regarding whether its protection extends to unauthorized occupants. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised involved matters of general public importance requiring statutory interpretation, thereby granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that substantial questions regarding the interpretation of statutory protections for possession of evacuee property warrant a full hearing on appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the benefit of section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1957 is available only to persons who possessed property under lawful authority?
- Whether findings on adverse possession prior to 1st March 1947 are vitiated if not based on proper appreciation of revenue records?
- Abdul Hameed Versus Imam Din1983 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- Zohra Bibi Versus Muhammad Boota1983 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an appeal regarding a dispute over agricultural land in District Sheikhupura. The land was originally allotted to the respondent in 1955, subsequently cancelled in 1960, and re-allotted to the petitioners in 1961. Following protracted litigation, the High Court allowed the respondent's constitutional petition based on a re-verified claim and remanded the matter to Settlement Authorities to determine the respondent's entitlement and dispose of any excess land according to law. The petitioners challenged this remand, arguing that the re-verification document was not genuine and that, as long-term possessors, they should be entitled to the land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order was appropriate because the case involved a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents that could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that directing the disposal of land 'in accordance with law' is legally sound, as courts cannot dictate a specific outcome contrary to statutory disposal procedures. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is a remand order appropriate when a case involves a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents?
- Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction resolve factual disputes regarding the validity of re-verification documents?
- Is a direction by the High Court to dispose of land 'in accordance with law' legally sufficient?
- Feroze Begum Versus Muhammad Hussain1983 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a custody dispute over two minor children between their divorced parents. The Family Judge and the High Court both ruled in favor of the father, granting him custody primarily based on his superior financial status as a military officer, without adequately discussing the evidence or evaluating the actual welfare of the minors. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the paramount and overriding consideration in custody matters under the Guardians and Wards Act is the welfare of the minor, which encompasses material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being, and that a father's statutory right to guardianship does not automatically entitle him to custody unless it serves the minor's welfare. The Court further laid down that a mother's poverty or inability to maintain the children does not deprive her of her right to hizanat, as the father remains legally obligated to provide maintenance, and uprooting children from stable schooling merely for elite boarding institutions without assessing their current well-being is improper.
Questions settled- Whether a father's statutory right to guardianship automatically entitles him to the custody of his minor children?
- Does a mother's poverty or lack of independent financial resources serve as a valid ground to deprive her of the custody of her minor children?
- What constitutes the paramount consideration in determining an application for the custody of a minor under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980?
- Muhammad Afzal Versus State1983 SCMR 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a clerk in the District Food Controller's office, under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the recovery of tainted currency notes and the mechanics of the bribery raid beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the supervising Magistrate, corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, sufficiently proved the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant's custody and sustained the conviction. The key principle laid down is that credible and consistent eyewitness testimony of a judicial magistrate supervising a raid, corroborated by recovery and lack of major discrepancies in cross-examination, is sufficient to maintain a conviction in corruption cases.
Questions settled- Whether the uncontradicted testimony of a supervising Magistrate regarding the recovery of tainted currency notes is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can a conviction for bribery be maintained when the raiding party members did not overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused?
- Is the recovery of tainted currency notes from an almirah pursuant to a supervised raid sufficient proof of illegal gratification?
- Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1983 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan Versus State1983 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail Versus State1983 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
- Ghufran Ahmad Siddiqi Versus Subban Sheikh1983 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif Cheema Versus Secretary to Government of Punjab1983 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by sixteen petitioners challenging the order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals against their threatened reversion from the acting charge of Sub Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers to their substantive posts of Overseers or Sub-Engineers. The petitioners were initially promoted on an acting charge basis as a stopgap arrangement under section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, with a liability to termination without notice. The core legal question concerned the competency of the service appeals against threatened reversion and stopgap arrangements. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not fit for leave to appeal because the petitioners had approached the Service Tribunal without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, rendering their appeal incompetent under section 4(a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. The key principle laid down is that statutory preconditions for approaching a service tribunal, including departmental remedies, must be strictly fulfilled, and acting charge stopgap promotions do not confer a vested right against reversion.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal is competent without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Do civil servants holding acting charge appointments on a stopgap basis acquire a vested right against reversion?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of an appeal by the Service Tribunal where statutory departmental remedies were bypassed?
- Province of Punjab Versus Ghulam Haider1983 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had restored a trial court decree declaring the correct date of birth of a civil servant and ordering its substitution in his service record, thereby allowing him to continue in service. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such service-related matters, specifically the determination of a civil servant's date of birth and service record entries, following the establishment of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in light of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and the constitutional bar on the jurisdiction of other courts in service matters. Pending the final adjudication of this appeal, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court, thereby preserving the status quo regarding the respondent's service status until the matter is definitively resolved by the apex court.
Questions settled- Does the establishment of a Service Tribunal oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate matters concerning the service record and date of birth of a civil servant?
- Can the High Court restore a trial court decree regarding a civil servant's date of birth after the enactment of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- A. Ghani Sayeed Versus National Bank of Pakistan1983 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- Afzal Ali Versus Ashraf Ali1983 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain Versus State1983 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif Versus Administrator (Residual Properties), Multan1983 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- Bhurey Khan Versus Muhammad Anwar1983 SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafi Versus Muhammad Ali1983 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din Alias Muhammad Fazil Versus Mazhar Iqbal1983 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bakhsh Versus Thai Development Authority1983 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anwar Versus State1983 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for bail in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the plea of tender age, supported by a school leaving certificate, can be rejected solely based on a contrary police assessment of age. The Supreme Court held that the police's view was insufficient to displace the certified school leaving certificate, especially when the State could not raise objections against its genuineness. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the appellant was granted bail. The key principle laid down is that official documentary evidence such as a school leaving certificate carries superior evidentiary value regarding age determination at the bail stage compared to a contrary police opinion unsupported by cogent material.
Questions settled- Can a plea of tender age supported by a school leaving certificate be rejected solely on the basis of a contrary police assessment?
- What is the evidentiary value of a school leaving certificate regarding the age of an accused in a bail application?
- Muhammad Afzal Versus State1983 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 of the appellant Muhammad Afzal while converting his death sentence to life imprisonment, in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on ocular testimony corroborated by a disputed weapon recovery, particularly when co-accused had been acquitted on similar evidentiary deficiencies. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the recovery of the weapon was highly doubtful due to lack of independent and respectable witnesses from the locality and because the recovery location was jointly possessed, thereby stripping the prosecution case of necessary corroboration. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony requires corroboration, a weapon recovery is inadmissible or insufficient if it fails to comply with statutory discovery requirements under the Evidence Act 1872, involves biased or interested witnesses without associating independent local inhabitants, and occurs from premises under joint or non-exclusive possession.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of an incriminating weapon can serve as valid corroboration of ocular testimony when the recovery witnesses are interested parties and no independent local inhabitants are associated?
- Does a recovery from a premises in joint possession exclusively incriminate the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on uncorroborated ocular testimony when co-accused facing identical allegations have been acquitted on the basis of insufficient corroboration?
- Kabir Ahmad Versus Government of the Punjab1982 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding the seniority list dated 11-7-1978. The petitioners were recommended for appointment in 1973 under Rule 5-A of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 (a temporary special provision for that calendar year), but appointment letters were issued on 10-5-1974 before the formal notification dated 18-5-1974 amending Rule 5-B was gazetted. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' seniority was governed by Rule 5-A or the subsequent notification of 18-5-1974, and whether respondents appointed under normal rules or treated as promotees held seniority over them. The Supreme Court held that Rule 5-A lapsed after 1973 and could not confer seniority rights for appointments made in 1974. The petitioners' appointments were governed by the notification dated 18-5-1974, which validly ranked them junior to regular appointees and promotees under Rule 5. The petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a special temporary recruitment rule limited to a specific calendar year continue to confer seniority rights after the expiration of that calendar year?
- Whether an appointee who accepts an offer of appointment conditioned upon future rules and regulations is bound by a subsequent notification regulating recruitment and seniority?
- Can the Government invoke its statutory power under section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 to relax rules and grant presumptive seniority by treating appointees as promotees to prevent undue hardship?
- Is a notification determining seniority under special appointment provisions ultra vires of section 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants Ordinance 1974 when issued under section 25 thereof?
- Allah Bakhsh Versus State1982 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking the same benefit extended to co-convicts in an impugned judgment, following the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question is whether a petitioner who has become a fugitive from law is entitled to seek relief by way of review before the court. The court holds that a petitioner having remained a fugitive from law is not entitled to seek any relief, including through review proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a fugitive from law disentitles themselves from obtaining judicial relief, leaving them to seek remedies from executive authorities if so advised.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner who has become a fugitive from law entitled to seek relief by way of review?
- Can a fugitive from law obtain relief from the Supreme Court?
- Fateh Muhammad Versus State1982 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had cancelled the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner, Fateh Muhammad, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that his co-accused had been granted bail by lower courts. The Supreme Court observed that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) contained a direct charge against the petitioner for firing the fatal shot at the deceased, and that medical evidence corroborated the cause of death as a gunshot wound. Furthermore, the court noted the existence of a blood-feud between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order cancelling the bail was justified given the specific allegations and evidence against the petitioner. The court affirmed that the mere fact that co-accused have been granted bail does not automatically entitle a petitioner to bail when there is specific, direct evidence of their involvement in the crime. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle a petitioner to bail?
- Is the existence of a direct charge in the F.I.R. for a fatal act a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail when there is specific evidence of the petitioner's involvement?
- Hakam Din Versus Muhammad Jamil1982 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Board of Revenue, which had upheld a Collector's order directing the restitution of mortgaged land without payment under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964. The appellant contended that the Act was void ab initio as it violated fundamental property rights under the 1962 Constitution, and that the mortgage was anomalous rather than usufructuary. The Supreme Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, noting that the argument regarding the retrospective invalidity of the Act under fundamental rights was unsustainable. On the merits, the Court examined the mortgage deed, which contained a main body and an addendum note. It held that because the possession was transferred to the mortgagee and any unpaid interest on the specified sum was to be added to the principal amount rather than being personally recoverable through a suit, the transaction remained a usufructuary mortgage. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Collector had validly ordered restitution under the Act.
Questions settled- Whether a mortgage is classified as usufructuary or anomalous if an addendum note stipulates that unpaid interest is to be added to the principal sum rather than creating a personal liability?
- Can a mortgage transaction be deemed usufructuary under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if possession is transferred and the principal and interest are to be adjusted against the income of the land?
- Does the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964 empower the Collector to order the restitution of usufructuary mortgaged land without payment?
- Mansab Khan Versus State1982 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming his death sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the reliability of closely related eye-witnesses without independent corroboration, the sufficiency of motive, and the validity of confirming a death sentence where another concurrent murder occurred. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses, being consistent and free from major infirmities, can be safely relied upon without independent corroboratory evidence, especially when the witnesses are also related to the accused and no motive for false substitution is shown. Furthermore, the court held that the existence of a weaker motive or a separate murder conviction does not constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can related eye-witness testimony be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does a weak or minor motive furnish a ground for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a separate murder conviction of the accused be taken into consideration when assessing the quantum of sentence?
- Mansha Versus State1982 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mansha, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of two individuals and a murderous assault, receiving a death sentence. The High Court acquitted some co-accused, acquitted the petitioner of the assault charge, but maintained his conviction for murder and confirmed the death sentence, while reducing the sentences of other co-convicts to life imprisonment based on their age and influence by elders. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction on merits and the sentence. The Supreme Court found no evidence of misreading or ignoring material evidence by the High Court, declining to grant leave on the merits of the conviction. However, the Court granted leave specifically to consider the question of sentence, particularly whether the petitioner was entitled to a lesser penalty due to the alleged influence of his elders, despite their subsequent acquittal by the courts below. The matter was set for further consideration regarding the legal permissibility of applying the 'influence of elders' doctrine when those elders have been acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a convict be granted a lesser penalty on the ground of being under the influence of elders if those elders were acquitted by the courts?
- Is it permissible to reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the High Court has not ignored or misread material evidence?
- Mehar Din Versus Alamdar Hussain1982 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique Versus State1982 SCMR 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad Versus State1982 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Mashlakhuddin Versus Ali Haider1982 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ilahi Bux Versus State1982 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 7980-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' appeal against their conviction for murder, house trespass, and abduction. The core legal question revolves around whether the conviction can be sustained based on eye-witness testimony that was heavily compromised by a subsequent contradictory private complaint, false recoveries, and material discrepancies with medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences, holding that when the prosecution introduces a false version, witnesses deliberately perjure themselves, and recoveries are found to be false and dishonest, it becomes extremely dangerous to rely on such testimony without unimpeachable and independent corroboration. The key principle laid down is that while courts may sift grain from the chaff, where the prosecution's case is riddled with false evidence, contradictions, and fabricated versions, uncorroborated and perjured testimony cannot form the basis of a safe conviction, and motive alone is insufficient corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when eye-witnesses have deliberately perjured themselves and introduced a completely contradictory version through a private complaint?
- Does medical evidence showing gunshot injuries from a distance contradict eye-witness claims of point-blank firing during a struggle?
- Can motive alone serve as sufficient independent corroboration to maintain a conviction where the primary testimony is untrustworthy and recoveries have been disbelieved?
- Rajab Ali Syal Versus Ahmadi Begum1982 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- Safia Bibi Versus Aisha Bibi1982 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed an application for the recall of a previous order disposing of a constitutional petition based on an alleged compromise. The petitioner asserted that the compromise was fraudulent, as it was entered into by an unauthorized person claiming to be her attorney. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to inquire into allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the validity of its own order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was legally obligated to adjudicate these allegations. The Court emphasized that under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a person challenging a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction must seek their remedy by making an application to the court that passed the order, rather than by filing a separate suit. Consequently, the High Court’s refusal to hold an inquiry was improper, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the merits of the fraud allegations.
Questions settled- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a court to adjudicate allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in its own orders?
- Can a party challenge a judgment or order on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation by filing a separate suit?
- Is a court empowered to decide an application for recall of an order based on fraud even if the applicant cited the wrong provision of law?
- Nemat Khan Versus Abadan Khan1982 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
- Bakhat Baidar Versus State1982 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal under Article 185(2)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the appellant's acquittal and convicted him under section 302/149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's finding of fact regarding the appellant's abscondence, which served as the sole corroboration for interested eye-witness testimony in an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its own view for that of the trial court on the question of abscondence without giving proper weight to the trial judge's assessment. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that in appeals against acquittal, findings of fact by the trial court—especially those based on the evaluation of witness demeanour and explanations for conduct such as abscondence—should not be lightly disturbed by the High Court unless the view taken by the trial court is perverse or clearly unreasonable.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in an appeal against acquittal to substitute its own view for that of the trial court regarding the explanation of abscondence?
- Does the testimony of interested eye-witnesses require independent corroboration before it can form the basis of a conviction?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a trial judge who had the advantage of observing the witnesses?
- Roberts Cotton Association Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Zone, Lahore1982 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the tax treatment of a loss incurred by the appellant, Roberts Cotton Association Ltd., during a business reorganization. The appellant, part of the 'Roberts Group,' sold its shares in Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. and simultaneously sold its outstanding debt claim against the Mill to the 'Ali Group' at a significant discount. The appellant sought to claim this shortfall as a bad debt, a business expenditure, or a trading loss under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The tax authorities and the High Court rejected these claims, finding the transaction was a voluntary, colourable arrangement to benefit the Ali Group rather than a necessary business expense or an irrecoverable debt. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the loss was not a deductible bad debt or trading loss because there was no evidence of the debtor's inability to pay, and the loss was voluntarily incurred for purposes unrelated to the appellant's own business operations. The Court held that a voluntary relinquishment of a claim to facilitate a group-level exit strategy does not constitute a deductible business loss.
Questions settled- Can a voluntary discount on an actionable claim sold to a third party be claimed as a bad debt under the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Is a loss incurred by a company to facilitate a group-level business exit considered an allowable business expenditure?
- Does the mere fact that a debtor is running at a loss justify treating an outstanding debt as a bad debt for tax purposes?
- Can a taxpayer claim a trading loss for a transaction that was not incidental to its own business operations?
- Shabbir Ahmad Versus Water and Power Development Authority1982 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Awais Versus Muhammad Alam1982 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs T.v Service Station Versus Parveen Anwar Afiridi1982 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings and orders of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which all concurrently ordered the eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlord, who attained majority during proceedings and wished to live independently from his step-father, established a genuine and good-faith personal requirement for the disputed residential annexe, despite accommodation existing in the main bungalow owned by his mother's current husband. The Supreme Court held that the landlord cannot be compelled to reside in the property of another person, and upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the personal requirement. The Court laid down the principle that a landlord's desire to live separately from a step-father in his own independent residential property constitutes a genuine and bona fide personal requirement under rent restriction laws.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can be compelled to reside in a house belonging to another person when assessing personal requirement for eviction?
- Does a landlord's desire to live separately from a step-father constitute a genuine and good-faith personal requirement for eviction?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in a rent matter?
- Gulzar Alias Gulzari Versus State1982 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta Versus Farzand Ali1982 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir Versus State1982 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Versus The State1982 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
- Halim Ali Versus Dilbar Muhammad1982 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor Versus State1982 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentence of the appellant, Abdul Ghafoor, while acquitting his co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, armed with a rifle, and his co-accused, armed with guns, intercepted and shot the deceased. The trial court convicted the accused based on ocular testimony and recovery of weapons. The High Court, however, discarded the recovery evidence and acquitted the co-accused, but maintained the appellant's conviction on the ground that the deceased's bullet injury corroborated the ocular testimony that the appellant was armed with a rifle. The Supreme Court observed that the ocular evidence was highly tainted, exaggerated, and riddled with material contradictions, including unexplained blunt-weapon injuries and the improbable escape of the eye-witnesses. The Court held that medical evidence showing a bullet injury merely proves the type of weapon used, but cannot corroborate the identity of the assailant when the ocular testimony itself is unreliable. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted him.
Questions settled- Can medical evidence showing a specific type of injury serve as independent corroboration of the identity of an accused if the ocular testimony is otherwise found to be unreliable?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the ground of unreliable ocular evidence necessitates the acquittal of the main accused if the same tainted evidence is used against him?
- Does the failure of eye-witnesses to explain additional blunt-weapon injuries on the deceased cast doubt on their presence at the crime scene?
- Muhammad Sharif Versus State1982 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Versus State1982 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali Versus State1982 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali Versus Abdul Rauf1982 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the conversion of an open space into a residential plot by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), the successor to the Lahore Improvement Trust. The appellant, an owner of a residential plot in the Shad Bagh Scheme, challenged the LDA's decision to allot a portion of adjacent open land to a third party, claiming he had acquired a vested right in the open space by paying extra charges for it. The core legal question was whether the appellant could establish a legal right to the open space based on alleged extra payments, despite his registered sale deed being silent on the matter. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove any such right. The Court found the document relied upon by the appellant to prove extra payments to be spurious and noted that rights in immovable property cannot be created by extraneous evidence or unregistered instruments when not reflected in the final conveyance deed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that no vested right existed in the open space.
Questions settled- Can a vested right in open space be established through extraneous evidence when the registered sale deed is silent on the matter?
- Does the payment of extra charges for a plot, if not reflected in the final conveyance deed, create a legal right in adjacent land?
- Can a right in immovable property valued over Rs. 100 be created by an unregistered instrument?
- Asgbar Ali Versus State1982 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Versus State1981 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan Versus Abdul Majid1981 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali Versus State1981 SCMR 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously dismissed a criminal petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained when it failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Supreme Court Rules regarding the advocate who drafts and presents such applications. The Court observed that the review petition was drawn by an advocate other than the one who had conducted the original leave petition, and the original advocate was not present at the hearing, both of which violated the established rules. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was procedurally defective and liable to be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a review petition must strictly adhere to the procedural mandates of the Supreme Court Rules, specifically the requirement that the application be drawn by the same advocate who appeared at the hearing of the original case and that said advocate must be present at the review hearing unless otherwise dispensed with.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be filed by an advocate other than the one who conducted the original case without special leave of the Court?
- Is the presence of the original advocate required at the hearing of a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules?
- What is the consequence of filing a review petition in violation of the procedural rules regarding advocate representation?
- Shah Sawar Versus Muhammad Aslam1981 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over a square of land granted to the first respondent for his bravery as a police officer. The Board of Revenue subsequently cancelled the grant without affording him a pre-decisional hearing, prompting the first respondent to challenge the cancellation via a constitutional writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed on the ground that the initial order was void for want of hearing. The petitioners, who were allotted the land after displacement, sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the writ petition had abated due to the un-substituted death of certain respondents, and that the initial lack of hearing was cured by a subsequent review application before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that procedural objections not raised before the High Court cannot be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave, that a review proceeding does not ordinarily cure an initial violation of natural justice unless a fair and full opportunity of hearing is provided, and that no provision under the relevant statute empowered the Board of Revenue to cancel a gallantry grant. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the abatement of a writ petition due to the death of respondents be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the failure to provide a pre-decisional hearing in an administrative order can be cured by a subsequent review application?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the legal competence under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 to cancel a land grant made for valour?
- Riaz Muhammad Versus Muhammad Nasib1981 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-21Read full judgment →
- Murad Ali Versus State1981 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of bribery through a trap raid despite the petitioner's defense that the recovered money was a friendly loan, and whether acquittal under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vitiates a conviction under section 161, P.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution established the guilt on cogent evidence, the defense plea was rightly rejected, and an acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not weaken the proven charge under section 161, P.P.C. The key principle laid down is that the failure of a charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not automatically undermine a separate, well-supported charge and conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 adversely affects the prosecution case on a charge under section 161, P.P.C.?
- Can a defense plea of a friendly loan be accepted over consistent prosecution evidence in a bribery trap case?
- Does the inability of raiding party members to hear the conversation between the accused and the decoy witness vitiate the prosecution case?
- Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1981 SCMR 856 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant admitted to causing the injuries with a sharp-edged weapon (bughda) but pleaded grave and sudden provocation, claiming he found the deceased in a compromising position. The trial court and High Court rejected the defence version and awarded the death sentence. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court noted that eye-witnesses arrived only after the attack had commenced and could not testify to the immediate trigger, but circumstantial evidence and prior marital discord indicated that the appellant acted under serious provocation. The Supreme Court held that while grave and sudden provocation was not strictly proved, sufficient mitigating circumstances existed to warrant commutation of the sentence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a reduction of the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, establishing the principle that the presence of serious provocation, even if falling short of full legal exception, may suffice to commute a death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life when circumstances indicate serious provocation despite the failure to strictly prove grave and sudden provocation?
- Can eye-witnesses who arrive after an attack has commenced testify conclusively as to what immediately preceded the initiation of the assault?
- Muhammad Anwar Versus State1981 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dated 21st January, 1976, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The case was initially registered under Sections 148 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and later converted to Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following the death of the victim. The High Court had declined bail on the ground that the petitioner facilitated the murder as an active member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued entitlement to bail on grounds of rule of consistency, prolonged detention exceeding three years without likelihood of immediate trial commencement, and because only an act of catching hold (japha) was attributed to him without inflicting any fatal blow. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail, accepting the petitioner's pleas regarding detention duration, the nature of participation, and parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused merely assigned the role of catching hold (japha) without inflicting fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity when similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration of an accused exceeding three years without likelihood of trial commencing constitutes a valid ground for grant of bail in a murder case?
- Whether vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 invariably bars the concession of post-arrest bail during the pendency of trial?
- Muhammad Akbar Versus Chairman Municipal Committee Jalalpur Jattan1981 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad Versus Bakhan1981 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- Nazar Ali Versus Mushtaq Ahmad1981 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
- Begum Bibi Versus Abdul Ghani1981 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over agricultural land originally sold by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, which was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on the ground of lack of legal necessity under customary law. The trial court and the district judge concurrently dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was for valid consideration and legal necessity. However, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal and reversed these concurrent findings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact on the question of legal necessity under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts without demonstrating any illegality, procedural defect, or failure to determine a material issue, particularly when substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the vendor was driven to necessity. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court can be upset by the High Court in a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without showing any error of law or procedure?
- What is the nature and scope of the enquiry required to be made by an alienee regarding the legal necessity of an agriculturist governed by customary law?
- Whether the vendor's statements and surrounding circumstances such as shifting residence and previous mortgage constitute sufficient evidence of legal necessity?