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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Arif Ali Khan and anothers vs The State and 6 others1993 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which set aside a Magistrate's order discharging the petitioners in a criminal case under sections 324, 147, and 148 of the P.P.C. The core legal question involved was whether the High Court could set aside a Magistrate's discharge order and police manipulation of challans under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., where the police acted mala fide despite the rejection of the petitioners' pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the discharge order and directing the trial court to proceed with the case, as the police actions and the mechanical discharge order amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The key principle laid down is that notwithstanding limitations on revisional powers regarding police reports under section 173 Cr.P.C., the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be invoked to rectify injustice and prevent the abuse of the process of the court in cases of mala fide police manipulation.
Questions settled- Whether an order of a Magistrate discharging an accused based on a police report can be interfered with by the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.?
- Does a mechanical discharge order passed by an Ilaqa Magistrate following a mala fide police application amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Can the High Court rectify administrative and judicial actions of lower courts and police officers that involve unauthorized cutting, interpolation, and omission of names in challans?
- Ardeshir Cowasjee, Karachi and 4 others vs Messrs Multiline1993 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the construction of a multistoreyed building consisting of nine floors besides the ground floor in the Frere Town Area of Karachi by respondent No. 1, permitted by the Karachi Building Control Authority in contravention of the Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations, which restricted constructions in the area to a ground floor and two upper storeys. The core legal questions involved the locus standi of residents of the same area who are not immediate neighbors to maintain a constitutional petition, the statutory force of the Regulations, the power of the authorities and the Chief Minister to compound or regularize violations or permit deviations, and the applicability of natural justice principles. The Sindh High Court held that residents of the locality have locus standi as aggrieved persons if their interests or amenities are prejudicially affected, that the Regulations have statutory force, that neither the Karachi Building Control Authority nor the Chief Minister has the power to condone or regularize high-rise constructions exceeding permissible height or storeys in violation of the Regulations, and that major alterations cannot be permitted without observing natural justice. The petition was allowed and the building approvals were declared without legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether residents of a locality residing away from an immediate building site have locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition against unauthorized high-rise construction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Do the Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations possess statutory force under the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance 1979?
- Whether the Karachi Building Control Authority or the Chief Minister has the legal authority to condone or regularize building constructions that violate the maximum permissible height and number of storeys prescribed by the Regulations?
- Does the power to compound offences under Section 19 of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance 1979 and Regulation 16 of the Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations include the power to regularize illegal structural deviations?
- Are principles of natural justice applicable to administrative proceedings involving major alterations in building regulations affecting residents of a locality?
- Ardeshir Cowasjee and 9 others vs Muhammad Naqi Nawab and 51993 PLD Karachi 631 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application by the plaintiffs seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from opening and running a school at a property situated in a residential area of Karachi, on the ground that it would cause a private nuisance and breach restrictive covenants in the lease. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded material facts of apprehended nuisance, whether the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as a public nuisance, and whether neighboring property owners deriving title from a common vendor can enforce restrictive covenants inter se under equity. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case of private nuisance and showed that the area was subject to a general development scheme with mutual restrictive covenants. The court granted the temporary injunction, laying down the principle that residents in close proximity who suffer direct and substantial interference with their enjoyment of land can enforce restrictive covenants in equity, independent of contractual privity, and that two or more wrongs do not make a right.
Questions settled- Can a private individual sue for nuisance without the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do neighboring property owners deriving title from a common vendor have the right in equity to enforce restrictive covenants inter se?
- Whether the establishment of a school in a purely residential area constitutes an actionable private nuisance?
- Does the mere presence of a consulate or a Montessori school in a locality destroy the basic residential character of the area?
- Anwarul Haque vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 850 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
- Anwarul Haq vs State Oil Company Ltd.1993 CLC 1565 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Anwar Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1842 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Anwar Khattak vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Anwar Jawaid Khan vs N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology, Karachi and 15 others1993 CLC 1246 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-27Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Rachal Joseph1993 MLD 1666 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Anthony George vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 24 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
- Ansar Hussain vs Allah Ditta and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki vs The State and another1993 SCMR 1660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. for double murder and enhanced his sentence of life imprisonment to death upon a revision petition filed by the complainant. Before the Supreme Court, the conviction itself was not challenged, and arguments were confined solely to the quantum of sentence. The core legal question was whether the facts and surrounding circumstances, including persistent low-toned annoyance and matters affecting family honor regarding the appellant's niece, constituted extenuating circumstances warranting the lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of death. The Supreme Court held that the cumulative effect of continuous provocation, doubt cast on the prosecution's version of events, and the absence of clear extenuation exclusion by the prosecution justified mitigating the sentence. The Court laid down the principle that the concept of the benefit of doubt can be extended to the question of sentence, and that persistent low-toned annoyance or continuous indignation affecting family honor can serve as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the lesser punishment of life imprisonment rather than the extreme penalty of death.
Questions settled- Can the principle of the benefit of doubt be extended to the determination of the quantum of sentence in a murder case?
- Does persistent low-toned annoyance or continuous embarrassment caused by the deceased constitute a mitigating circumstance for awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
- Is the prosecution bound by law to exclude all possible extenuating circumstances in order to justify the award of the normal penalty of death?
- Anjum Parvez Qureshi vs Baber Sultan1993 CLC 1823 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03Read full judgment →
- Anisurrehman vs Haji Abdul Majeed & Company and 4 others1993 CLC 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- Anis Ahmed vs Tasawar Jahangir1993 CLC 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
- Anis Abbas Jalali vs Abdul Wahid1993 CLC 1970 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- Anil Phukan vs State of Assam1993 SCMR 2236 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Gauhati High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Anil Phukan, and his brothers for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained solely on the testimony of a single interested eye-witness in the absence of independent and reliable corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the sole eye-witness suffered from material infirmities, unnatural conduct, and contradictions with the medical evidence, which only indicated injuries attributable to a single assailant whose weapons were recovered from a separate co-accused. Consequently, the Court established the principle that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness if wholly reliable, an interested witness with doubtful conduct requires reliable independent corroboration, and in the absence of such corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and an acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
- When does a court require independent corroboration for the testimony of a single eye-witness?
- What is the evidentiary value of an interested witness whose conduct is unnatural?
- Does the benefit of the doubt warrant an acquittal when prosecution evidence lacks corroboration?
- Anees Iqbal vs Jehan Ara Yusuf Ali1993 PLD Karachi 516 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Anar Gul and 5 others vs Hindostan Khan through Legal Heirs1993 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- Amshaid Hussain Rana vs Mst. Rehana Kausar1993 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a sum of Rs. 24,800 in favour of the respondent-wife as the equivalent money-value of her unreturned articles of dowry against the petitioner-husband. The core legal questions involved whether the suit for recovery of dowry articles was barred by limitation under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether concurrent factual findings regarding the possession and value of the dowry articles could be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the initial possession of dowry articles by the husband during marriage is permissive and lawful, and under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908, time begins to run from the date of demand and refusal or when the detention becomes unlawful following an effective divorce, rendering the suit within limitation. The Court laid down the principle that in marital disputes, the possession of dowry articles becomes unlawful upon the pronouncement of an effective divorce and subsequent refusal upon demand, and that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908 start to run for the recovery of dowry articles detained by a husband?
- Does the initial possession of dowry articles by a husband in the matrimonial home constitute unlawful detention from the beginning?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the value and possession of dowry articles be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the pronouncement of an effective divorce render the continued retention of a wife's dowry articles by the husband unlawful?
- Amroo Khan vs Dhanney KhanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 142 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Amjad Khan vs Mst. Mariam1993 CLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of the respondent-landlady's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlady had established her personal requirement for the premises in good faith, given the tenant's contention that she already possessed sufficient accommodation and that her claim was mala fide. The Court held that the landlady successfully demonstrated her bona fide requirement by providing evidence that she and her family were living in unauthorized, miserable conditions in a 'juggi' (shanty), whereas the tenant failed to provide credible evidence to the contrary. The Court affirmed the Rent Controller's decision, emphasizing that once a landlord establishes the reasonableness of their need, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove mala fides or dishonesty. The judgment clarifies that 'good faith' under the relevant rent laws requires that the demand for possession be made honestly, a state of mind inferred from evidence and conduct rather than mere assertion.
Questions settled- What is the legal definition of 'good faith' in the context of a landlord's claim for personal requirement?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the tenant once a landlord establishes the reasonableness of their need for personal use?
- Can a landlord's claim for personal requirement be defeated by a witness statement that lacks specific details regarding the landlord's current living conditions?
- Amjad Ali Shami, Electronic Engineer vs Director, Regional1993 SCMR 1364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding adverse remarks recorded in his performance evaluation as an Electronic Engineer (B-17) at the Regional Meteorological Centre, Lahore. The appellant challenged these remarks, contending they were unjustified and stemmed from a single incident where he disagreed with the Chairman of a Selection Committee. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the adverse remarks recorded against the appellant were warranted based on his service record. Upon review of the appellant's complete service record produced by the respondents, the Supreme Court determined that the remarks were not justified and warranted expunction. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, and directed that the adverse remarks be expunged from the appellant's record. The judgment reaffirms the principle that adverse service remarks must be substantiated by the overall service record and cannot be sustained if they lack objective justification or appear to be based on isolated, non-prejudicial incidents.
Questions settled- Are adverse remarks against a civil servant justified when based on a single incident of professional disagreement?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review and expunge adverse remarks from a civil servant's service record?
- Is a complete review of a service record necessary to determine the validity of adverse remarks?
- Amir Zaman and another vs Abdul Khaliq and 2 others1993 CLC 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision arises from a dispute over land ownership and possession. The parties, having previously litigated the matter through trial and remand, agreed during post-remand appellate proceedings to have their dispute resolved based on the statement of a specific individual, Muhammad Ijaz Khan. The appellate court passed a decree in accordance with this statement. The petitioners (defendants) challenged this, arguing that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to delegate the decision to a witness and that they should not be bound by the parts of the statement adverse to their interests. The High Court held that parties to a lis are at liberty to adopt any mode of trial, including referring the dispute to a referee, even during post-remand proceedings. The Court clarified that the individual acted as a referee, not a mere witness. Consequently, the Court ruled that parties cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting only favorable portions of a referee's statement. The revision was dismissed, affirming that a consent-based order cannot be challenged on technicalities when justice has been served.
Questions settled- Can parties to a civil suit agree to have their dispute decided by a referee during post-remand proceedings?
- Does the description of a referee as a 'witness' in court records invalidate the nature of the reference if the parties clearly agreed to be bound by the statement?
- Can a party challenge a consent-based judgment by accepting only the favorable portions of a referee's statement while rejecting the unfavorable ones?
- Amir Khan vs Inspector General of Police and Two OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 204 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Amir Hussain Khan vs Ghulam Akbar Khan1993 MLD 686 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-12Read full judgment →
- Amir Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Amir Ali vs The Tehsildar (Recovery), Provincial Agricultural1993 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Amir Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 457 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- Amir Ali and others vs Shamsul HAQComplainant1993 P Cr. L J 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Amir Ahmed vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1993 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, appointed to the accounts group through a competitive examination, had his services terminated while on probation pursuant to section 11(1)(i), Civil Servants Act, 1973. His subsequent representation to the Prime Minister was withheld as time-barred, and his appeal before the Service Tribunal was dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the appellant was entitled to a show-cause notice prior to the termination of his probationary services. The Supreme Court observed that under section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the competent authority is empowered to terminate the services of a probationer civil servant without notice. The Court further noted the appellant's failure to respond to departmental communications and found the medical certificate produced regarding his mental health insufficient to excuse his conduct or establish incapacity. Additionally, since the departmental representation was time-barred, the service appeal was not maintainable. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination was lawfully executed and the Service Tribunal was justified in refusing to interfere.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant on probation is entitled to a show-cause notice before the termination of his services under Section 11(1)(i) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable when the departmental representation against termination is barred by time?
- Amir Ahmed vs Irshad Ahmed1993 CLC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two First Rent Appeals filed by an appellant against a common order of the Rent Controller, which dismissed his ejectment applications against two tenants. The core legal question was whether a landlord can maintain an ejectment application against tenants when the landlord's title to the property is disputed and has been found to be fraudulent by civil courts. The Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist because the appellant failed to establish ownership of the property. The appellant had falsely represented himself as the owner, while the actual owner was a third party, Z.A. Khan, who had purchased the plot in an open auction. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the ejectment applications, emphasizing that a landlord must prove their title to the property to succeed in an ejectment claim. The key principle laid down is that in rent proceedings, a landlord must satisfy the Rent Controller regarding their ownership of the disputed property; failing such proof, the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be established, and the ejectment application must be dismissed.
Questions settled- Must a landlord prove ownership of the property to maintain an ejectment application against a tenant?
- Does the relationship of landlord and tenant exist if the landlord has fraudulently misrepresented their title to the property?
- Can a Rent Controller dismiss an ejectment application if the landlord fails to establish title to the disputed premises?
- Amir Afzal and 2 others vs Ghu Lam Haider and 2 others1993 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Aminullah and 2 others vs Qalandar Khan and 4 others1993 SCMR 2307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside an order of the Federal Land Commission (FLC) regarding land ownership in District Dir. The central legal question was whether the FLC possessed jurisdiction under Martial Law Regulation No. 123 to adjudicate the dispute, which required the existence of specific jurisdictional facts, namely that the land was located in Shattai Darra and the dispute involved a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court held that the FLC acted without lawful authority because these essential jurisdictional facts were absent. The Court affirmed that administrative tribunals cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves by ignoring the objective existence of statutory prerequisites. While High Courts generally do not adjudicate disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction, they are empowered to determine jurisdictional facts to ensure an inferior tribunal remains within its legal sphere. Finding that the dispute was a title conflict rather than a landlord-tenant matter and that the land was not within the specified area, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, declaring the FLC’s order void.
Questions settled- Can an administrative tribunal confer jurisdiction upon itself by ignoring the objective existence of statutory prerequisites?
- Is the determination of jurisdictional facts by a High Court an exception to the general rule against reviewing disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a dispute regarding title between parties fall within the scope of Martial Law Regulation No. 123, which is limited to landlord-tenant disputes?
- Amina Sultana vs Amanat Alt1993 P Cr. L J 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
- Amina Rehman vs Mirza Karamat Hussain and others1993 MLD 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased Major Ajmal Hussain, and instead decreed the suit by apportioning the estate among the legal heirs according to Islamic law. The core legal questions involved whether the deceased had made valid inter vivos oral gifts of his residential properties and a car to his second wife during his lifetime, and whether a suit for administration of the estate was a competent legal remedy to challenge such dispositions. The Lahore High Court held that the oral gifts were not proved as the evidence adduced by the defendant-wife was insufficient and failed to satisfy the essential requirements of a gift under Muhammadan Law. The Court further observed that the administration suit was competent and that questions regarding the existence of property belonging to the deceased's estate are rightly determinable therein. The key principle laid down is that an oral gift of valuable immovable property requires unimpeachable and high-order evidence to establish its completion, and an administration suit properly encompasses the determination of the assets rightfully forming part of a deceased's estate.
Questions settled- Whether an oral gift of immovable property by a husband to his wife is validly established by interested oral testimony without written records?
- Can a suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person competently inquire into the existence of property claimed under an inter vivos gift?
- Does the onus of proving an inter vivos gift of property lie upon the person claiming as donee?
- Is an objection to the form and maintainability of an administration suit permissible for the first time at the hearing of a civil revision?
- Amin Akhtar Jami vs Jahangir Alam1993 MLD 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
- American Telephone and Telegraph Company vs The Assistant1993 PLD Karachi 144 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
- Amer Shujat Khan vs The Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Ament Geb Hofmann vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-29Read full judgment →
- Ameena Bai vs Kuppuswami Naidu and others1993 C M R 2172 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
- Amanullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 84 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Amanullah vs The State (Copy)1993 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of the appellant under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act of taking away a married woman with her consent constituted kidnapping or abduction under section 11 of the Ordinance, or fell under section 16 of the Ordinance instead. The Supreme Court held that since the victim was an adult and a consenting party, neither kidnapping nor abduction involving force or deceit under section 11 was established. However, the court held that taking away a woman with intent to commit illicit intercourse constitutes an offence under section 16 of the Ordinance regardless of the woman's consent. Consequently, the court converted the appellant's conviction from section 11 to section 16 of the Ordinance, reducing his sentence accordingly while maintaining his separate conviction under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Does the offence of kidnapping or abduction under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 apply when the victim is an adult and a consenting party?
- Whether taking away a woman with intent to have illicit intercourse constitutes an offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if the woman accompanies the accused of her own free will?
- What are the definitions of kidnapping and abduction applicable under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 in the absence of explicit definitions in the Ordinance itself?
- Amanullah Silk Mills vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Joint1993 CLC 357 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
- Amanullah Siddiqui vs Government of Sindh & AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 113 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
- Amanullah Khan vs WAPDA through Chairnian and 3 others1993 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal against an order of dismissal from service. The petitioner, a deputationist from the Punjab Government to WAPDA, had proceeded abroad on leave, failed to return upon its expiry, and accepted unauthorized employment in Saudi Arabia despite a prior written undertaking not to seek other employment. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the grounds that it was given retrospective effect and that the inquiry process was flawed. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had unilaterally abandoned his employment by accepting a job abroad in violation of his undertaking. The Court held that the dismissal order, by referencing the date of abandonment, merely stated a factual reality rather than exercising retrospective power. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's conduct in failing to return and accepting unauthorized employment justified the dismissal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, as the petitioner could not resile from his written undertaking or claim the benefit of policies inapplicable to his deputation status.
Questions settled- Can an employee on deputation unilaterally accept foreign employment in violation of a written undertaking?
- Does an order of dismissal referencing the date of abandonment of service constitute an impermissible retrospective order?
- Is an employee who fails to return from leave and takes unauthorized employment entitled to challenge the dismissal order on the basis of retrospective effect?
- Amanullah Butt vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 377 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Amanullah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 743 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Amanullah and another vs The State1993 MLD 533 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
- Amanullah and another vs Shamimul Haq and another1993 MLD 1994 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
- Amanat Khan and others vs Settlement Department and others1993 CLC 919 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
- Amanat Ali vs Waris Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Amanat Ali vs The State1993 SCMR 1992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Amanat Ali, who was charged alongside five others in a criminal case involving murder and causing hurt. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific allegations leveled against him in the First Information Report. Upon examination of the record, the Supreme Court observed that the only allegation attributed to the petitioner in the First Information Report was that of raising a 'Lalkara' (incitement). Finding this insufficient to warrant continued incarceration at the pre-trial stage, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the role attributed to an accused in a criminal case is limited to mere incitement or 'Lalkara' without direct participation in the overt act of violence, the accused is generally entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the only allegation in the First Information Report is the raising of a 'Lalkara'?
- Does the mere attribution of incitement without direct participation in the overt act justify the refusal of bail in a murder case?
- Amanat Ali vs Muhammad Yousaf and another1993 P Cr. L J 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Amanat Ali and 5 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 others1993 MLD 377 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah Khan vs Mehar Ellahi And 14 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 49 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station City Khushab and others1993 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs S.H.O. and 2 others1993 MLD 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs Lal Khan1993 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, claiming a superior right of pre-emption against a sale-deed executed through a court decree in a specific performance suit. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the transaction was not pre-emptible and that the petitioner failed to prove his superior right. Upon review, the High Court held that a sale executed by the court on behalf of a vendor pursuant to a decree for specific performance is indeed pre-emptible, as the court acts as the agent of the vendor. However, the High Court upheld the appellate court's finding on the second point, ruling that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove his alleged relationship to the vendors through reliable affirmative evidence, noting that a plaintiff cannot reserve their own statement in affirmative until after the close of defence evidence. The civil revision was accordingly dismissed on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a sale of land concluded through a court-executed sale-deed in pursuance of a decree for specific performance is pre-emptible?
- Can a plaintiff reserve their own statement in affirmative to be recorded after the close of the defendant's evidence?
- Whether uncorroborated oral testimony of a plaintiff is sufficient to establish a disputed relationship for a claim of superior right of pre-emption?
- Altaf and Co. vs Adam Sugar Mills Ltd Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 45 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-23Read full judgment →
- Alnoor Education Society through Naeem Moyuddin, Karachi vs K.1993 CLC 1798 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller regarding a rented bungalow. The core legal question was whether the tenant's unauthorized structural alterations, including converting a verandah into a room and constructing additional rooms in open spaces, constituted grounds for eviction under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The court upheld the eviction, ruling that these acts materially impaired the utility and value of the premises. The court established that the statutory language 'likely to impair' does not require proof of actual, permanent damage, but merely a tendency to impair the property's value or utility. It further held that structural alterations changing the nature and character of the premises are actionable even if theoretically reversible, as the assessment must be made in the present. Finally, the court affirmed that violating an express covenant in a lease deed regarding structural changes constitutes a breach of the conditions of the lease, independently warranting eviction under the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the term 'likely to impair' in the context of rented premises require proof of actual permanent damage to the property?
- Do structural alterations that are reversible still constitute grounds for eviction if they change the nature and character of the premises?
- Does the violation of an express covenant in a lease deed regarding structural changes constitute a breach of the conditions of the lease under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Must a landlord prove that both the value and the utility of the rented premises have been impaired to secure an eviction order?
- Allah Yar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- Allah Yar vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- Allah Wasaya Sheikh vs The Government of Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
- Allah Raki-Ia alias Bodi and anothers vs The State and another1993 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case. The petitioners were accused of injuring their father with brickbats, resulting in simple injuries, under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had cancelled the bail on the basis that the trial court failed to consider the nature of the injuries and threats made against the complainant. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the offence charged, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail as a matter of right, given the non-prohibitory nature of the offence. The petition was converted into an appeal, the High Court's order was set aside, and the petitioners were admitted to bail subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail liable to be cancelled when the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute?
- Allah Rakha vs Muhammad Yousuf and others1993 SCMR 1456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed the dismissal of his suit regarding the leasehold rights of two plots in Karachi. The petitioner, claiming 28 years of continuous occupation, alleged that the local council improperly granted leasehold rights to the respondents after initially accepting his payment for regularization. The trial court initially decreed in the petitioner's favor, but the appellate court and the High Court dismissed his claim, reasoning that the local council possessed the authority under Section 42 of the Sindh People's Local Council Government Ordinance to transfer property, and that the petitioner's mere possession did not entitle him to a decree. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a critical legal question regarding the scope of the council's power. The Court noted that Section 42 empowers a council to transfer property only subject to the rules, specifically Rule 13 of the Sindh People's Local Council (Land) Rules, 1975, which governs the regularization of unauthorized possession. The core principle established is that statutory powers of property transfer granted to local councils are not unrestricted and must be exercised in strict compliance with the governing procedural rules.
Questions settled- Does Section 42 of the Sindh People's Local Council Government Ordinance grant a local council unrestricted power to transfer property?
- Is the power of a local council to transfer or regulate property subject to the procedures prescribed in the Sindh People's Local Council (Land) Rules, 1975?
- Can a local council disregard the procedure for regularization of unauthorized possession under Rule 13 of the Sindh People's Local Council (Land) Rules, 1975, when exercising its powers under Section 42?
- Allah Diwaya vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
- Allah Diwaya Alias Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
- Allah Diwaya alias Allah Ditta and 4 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Yousaf1993 MLD 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 88 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-09Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 368 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others1993 MLD 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Hakim Ali and 5 others1993 MLD 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta and others vs Hafiz Zahoor Ahmed and another1993 CLC 1359 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, which affirmed the trial court's decision to close the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequently dismiss their suit for want of proof. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in closing the plaintiffs' evidence after numerous adjournments were granted without the plaintiffs producing evidence to discharge their burden of proof. The High Court held that the trial court's application of Order XVII, Rule 3 was neither improper nor illegal, noting that the record was replete with unjustified delays and procrastination by the plaintiffs despite multiple opportunities. The court affirmed that a trial court is not at the mercy of litigants and possesses the inherent power to enforce judicial discipline to prevent the abuse of process. Consequently, the revision petition was found to be without merit and dismissed in limine, as there was no scope for interference with the lower courts' exercise of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to persistent failure to produce evidence after multiple adjournments?
- Is the exercise of discretion by a trial court to close evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to interference in civil revision if the record shows unjustified delay?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to substantiate their claim when the defendant denies the alleged donation?
- Allah Ditta and another vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of Allah Ditta for abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr, alongside a State appeal against the acquittal of co-accused Ghulam Nabi. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence regarding the abduction charge and the classification of the Zina offense. The Court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the abduction charge under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 to be highly contradictory and unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant on that count. Regarding the Zina charge, the Court determined that the victim was a consenting party, noting medical evidence suggesting prior sexual activity and testimony indicating she voluntarily went to the appellant's house. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 10(3) to Section 10(2) of the Ordinance, reducing the sentence accordingly. The State's appeal against the acquittal of Ghulam Nabi was dismissed due to lack of reliable evidence. The judgment reaffirms that contradictory prosecution versions regarding the mode of abduction undermine the reliability of the charge.
Questions settled- Does contradictory testimony regarding the mode of abduction render a conviction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 unsustainable?
- Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be altered to Zina under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 when the evidence indicates the victim was a consenting party?
- Is an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt sustainable when prosecution witnesses contradict the victim's testimony regarding the co-accused's involvement?
- Allah Ditta and 7 others vs Mst. Hussain Bibi1993 CLC 228 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which decreed the respondent-daughter's suit for possession of agricultural land as an heir of her deceased father, reversing the trial court's dismissal. The core legal questions involve whether a co-sharer sister can be ousted by her brothers through adverse possession and whether such a suit is barred by time when inheritance mutation was sanctioned years prior. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that a sister becomes a co-sharer automatically upon the death of her father under Islamic law and that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be for the benefit of all. The court ruled that the plea of adverse possession or ouster by brothers against a sister is untenable, that wrong mutations confer no title, and that the suit is within limitation. The key principles laid down are that adverse possession and ouster cannot be successfully pleaded amongst co-sharers, particularly between brothers and a sister, and that an inheritance mutation is merely a fiscal arrangement for land revenue and does not extinguish the title of rightful heirs.
Questions settled- Whether a brother can claim adverse possession or ouster against his sister in respect of joint ancestral property?
- Does a wrong inheritance mutation confer any right or title in property against a rightful legal heir?
- Is a suit for possession and declaration filed by a co-sharer barred by time merely due to the lapse of years since the sanctioning of a contested inheritance mutation?
- Does the possession of one co-sharer operate as constructive possession on behalf of all other co-sharers?
- Allah Dawaya vs The State1993 PLD Supreme Court 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a murder conviction where leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court was justified in denying the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code and upholding a conviction under Section 302 after finding that the incident was a sudden fight rather than a free fight. The core legal question addressed was whether the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 can be denied solely on the ground that the accused's fatal act was intentional. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing Exception 4 merely because the act was intentional, clarifying that Exception 4 applies to sudden, unpremeditated fights even where an intention to cause death developed suddenly during the quarrel, provided other conditions such as the absence of undue advantage or cruelty are met. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 302, convicted the appellant under Section 304, Part I, and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine.
Questions settled- Can the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code be denied to an accused solely on the ground that the fatal act was intentional?
- Whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code is sustainable in a case of sudden fight where the intention to cause death developed suddenly during a quarrel?
- Does Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code apply to cases where an act is committed with the intention of causing death during a sudden fight without pre-meditation?
- Allah Dad vs Sarfraz Khan and 5 others1993 PLD Queeta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Allah Bux Laghari vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 408 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Government of Punjab and others1993 SCMR 2104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the pensionary status of the appellant, a former employee of the Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi. The appellant, originally an Overseer, was appointed as a Municipal Engineer on probation, but the requisite government sanction for confirmation was never granted. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered his reversion to his substantive post of Overseer. Although the appellant continued to perform duties as a Municipal Engineer under various court stay orders, he was never legally confirmed in that position. Upon his retirement, the appellant claimed pensionary benefits based on the rank of Municipal Engineer, relying on a retirement order that referenced his duties as such. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s substantive post remained that of an Overseer. The Court clarified that the reference to his duties in the retirement order was merely descriptive of the position he held under judicial protection and did not constitute a promotion or confirmation. The Court affirmed that in the absence of a rescinded reversion order, the appellant's pension must be calculated based on his substantive rank, while directing the prompt payment of all due benefits.
Questions settled- Does the performance of duties as a Municipal Engineer under court stay orders confer the status of a permanent Municipal Engineer for pension purposes?
- Can a reference to a designation in a retirement order be construed as a promotion to that rank if the substantive post remains unchanged?
- Is an employee entitled to pensionary benefits based on a rank held only under the protection of a temporary injunction?
- Allah Bachayo vs The State1993 MLD 1411 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
- Allah Bachayo and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1311 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-10Read full judgment →
- All Memon Welfare Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Barkat Ali1993 SCMR 1978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had accepted a constitutional petition and quashed an order of remand passed by the Revisional Authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The core legal question was whether the Revisional Authority was justified in remanding the dispute on a plea of fraudulent allotment that was contrary to the pleadings and admitted positions of the parties before the arbitrators and the Deputy Registrar. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly set aside the remand order because it traveled outside the scope of the pleadings and ignored facts already admitted on record by the appellant cooperative society. The key principle laid down is that appellate or revisional authorities cannot base their decisions or remand cases on pleas and factual controversies that contradict the express pleadings and admissions of the parties in the original proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a revisional authority under the Cooperative Societies Act remand a case on a factual plea contrary to the express pleadings of the parties?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with a perverse remand order passed outside the scope of pleadings?
- Does an admission of facts in a written statement before an arbitrator bind a cooperative society in subsequent proceedings?
- Aljehad Trust and others vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and 7 others1993 PLD Lahore 855 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Aljehad Trust and anothers vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and 81993 PLD Lahore 875 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs Wali Muhammad1993 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question was whether a husband killing a trespasser caught committing Zina with his wife under grave and sudden provocation is liable to Qisas, Tazir, or Diyat, or if the act is protected under Islamic injunctions regarding self-defence and the protection of honour. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant acted within his lawful right to defend his home and honour when he surprised the deceased committing Zina with his wife at night, and that such an act under grave and sudden provocation incurs no liability to Qisas, Tazir, or Diyat. The court laid down the principle that Islamic injunctions, read in conjunction with statutory provisions such as section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justify taking the life of an aggressor to prevent the violation of domestic sanctity and honour, and the appellant was accordingly acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a husband have the right under Islamic law to kill a trespasser caught committing Zina with his wife in his house at night?
- Whether the murder of a person committing Zina with one's wife attracts liability to Qisas or Tazir?
- Can a court assess the culpability of an accused under the Injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah pursuant to section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether an accused who kills an aggressor under grave and sudden provocation while defending his home and honour is entitled to acquittal?
- Ali Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad and another vs Additional Chief Land Commissioner and others1993 CLC 190 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ali Marjan and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Ali Bakhsh and 3 others vs Ghulam Muhammad (deceased) and 3 others1993 CLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ali Bahadur Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ibrar Hussain Shah, for which he was originally sentenced to death by the trial court, subsequently altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted for a reappraisal of the evidence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eyewitnesses testifying regarding a midnight occurrence, the possibility of mistaken identity, the plausibility of the alleged motive, and the reliability of uncorroborated testimony. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were free from misreading of evidence or legal infirmity, noting that related witnesses who were also related to the appellant could reliably identify him even at night through familiarity with his voice, mannerisms, and prior interactions. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of related eyewitnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship when such witnesses are equally related to the accused and harbor no prior animosity, and that identification in darkness is validly established when the assailant is well-known and interacts with the witnesses prior to the crime.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder case?
- Can a conviction be sustained for a crime committed at night where the possibility of mistaken identity is raised?
- Whether an accused can be identified at night through means other than facial recognition, such as voice and mannerisms?
- Ali Bahadur Shah vs The State1993 SCMR 1937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Ali Bahadur Shah, challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ibrar Hussain Shah. The trial court had sentenced him to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the incident occurred at night, making identification unreliable, and that the prosecution witnesses were interested parties related to the deceased. He further contended that the prosecution failed to establish a motive and that the alleged marriage proposal involving a minor was implausible given the age disparity. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court, which had correctly noted that the appellant was known to the witnesses, enabling identification through mannerisms and interaction, and that the witnesses were also related to the appellant, negating bias. The Supreme Court found no misreading of evidence by the lower courts, affirmed the High Court's reasoning regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the plausibility of the motive, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.
Questions settled- Can a person be identified in the dark by witnesses who are well-acquainted with them?
- Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the appellant fails to cross-examine witnesses on specific factual claims made during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ali Bahadur and others vs Muhammad Sarwar and another1993 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
- Ali Badshah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmad vs Mushtaq Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →