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.
- Abdul Aziz Bhatti, Advocate vs Punjab Province. through Secretary1989 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, filed by a retired civil servant challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner had previously obtained a civil court decree upholding his retirement at the age of 55 years. Following the implementation of this decree by the government, the petitioner sought further relief, claiming he should have been retired at the age of 60 and was entitled to pro forma promotion. The core legal question was whether a party, having secured a final judgment and decree from a civil court regarding their retirement status, can subsequently initiate new proceedings to claim additional benefits that were not part of the original decree. The Supreme Court held that the civil court judgment was conclusive and binding between the parties. Consequently, the petitioner could not seek further relief during the implementation phase of that judgment. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the rights of the parties were already settled, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant seek additional retirement benefits after a civil court has already issued a final decree regarding their retirement date?
- Is a judgment and decree of a civil court binding on the parties during the subsequent implementation of that decree?
- Does a service tribunal have the authority to reject a claim that has already been adjudicated by a civil court?
- Abdul Aziz And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2938 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz alias Teny alias Chhoto vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Alias Teny Alias Chhote vs The State1989 MLD 687 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz & Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 657 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Abbot Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 602 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference case from the Sindh High Court addresses whether the extra expenditure incurred by an assessee company in repaying a foreign currency loan due to the devaluation of the Pakistan Rupee is an admissible business deduction under the Income-tax Act. The applicant, a manufacturing company, borrowed US dollars with the permission of the State Bank of Pakistan to be utilized as working capital for importing raw materials. Following the devaluation of the currency, the company had to pay an excess amount in rupees to repatriate the loan and claimed it as a revenue expenditure allowance. The Income-tax authorities and the Tribunal disallowed the claim, treating it as a capital loss. The High Court held that since the loan was utilized for purchasing raw materials and running the business rather than acquiring a capital asset, the additional liability resulting from devaluation constituted a trading loss and a revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Questions settled- Whether the excess payment made on the repayment of a foreign currency loan due to the devaluation of the Pakistan Rupee is an admissible deduction under the Income-tax Act?
- Does a loan obtained for working capital and utilized for purchasing raw materials constitute a revenue liability rather than a capital liability?
- Is the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal from undisputed facts and circumstances a question of law that can be challenged under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act?
- Abbas vs The Honbe Chief Justice1989 PLC (C.S.) 338 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
- Abbas Alias Bassa And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 187 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ali vs Muhammad Sabir alias Sabri and 2 others1989 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of the murder of the petitioner's brother. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, but the High Court subsequently acquitted them, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in its assessment of evidence, specifically regarding two eye-witnesses who had resiled at the trial stage, and argued that the trial court had improperly restricted the cross-examination of these witnesses. The Supreme Court, upon review, found no misreading of evidence by the High Court nor any miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the case did not meet the established criteria for setting aside an acquittal in a murder case. Furthermore, the Court determined that the technical arguments regarding the cross-examination of the resiling witnesses were insufficient to alter the outcome, as further cross-examination would not have rehabilitated their credibility. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the restriction of cross-examination of resiling witnesses constitute sufficient grounds to set aside an acquittal?
- What are the conditions required for the Supreme Court to set aside a judgment of acquittal in a murder case?
- Can the testimony of resiling witnesses be relied upon to maintain a conviction if they are considered dishonest?
- Abbas Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Abaid Ur Rehman vs The State1989 MLD 4188 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- A.Ghani Sayeed vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 18 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
- A.Ghani Sayeed vs National Bank of Pakistan , the StateK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 17 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-03Read full judgment →
- A.F. Ferguson and Company vs Sind Labour Court No. II and others1989 PLC 484 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
- A.D.Nasim vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 455 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
- A.D.Nasim vs Ministry of Finance and OtherK.L.R. 1989 Labour & Service Cases 75 · Islamabad High Court · 1988-08-11Read full judgment →
- A.B. Malik vs Akhtar Hussain Nunari and others1989 PLC 471 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- A. Ghani Sayeed vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 249 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a service matter where the petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement from the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the application of the National Bank Staff Service Rules, 1980, instead of the 1973 Rules, vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, and whether the failure to supply the inquiry report or issue a second show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that the 1980 Rules did not prejudice the petitioner’s vested rights or impose a disadvantageous procedure compared to the 1973 Rules. Furthermore, the petitioner’s failure to object to the inquiry process or the Inquiry Officer's conduct during the proceedings precluded him from challenging them post-facto. The Court established that the issuance of a second show-cause notice and the supply of an inquiry report are not universal requirements of natural justice unless specifically mandated by the applicable rules. The key principle laid down is that procedural irregularities in disciplinary inquiries do not vitiate proceedings if they do not cause material prejudice to the accused's defense, especially when the accused has participated without objection.
Questions settled- Does the application of revised service rules in a disciplinary inquiry vitiate proceedings if they do not prejudice the employee's vested rights?
- Is the issuance of a second show-cause notice a mandatory requirement of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings where the rules do not explicitly provide for it?
- Can an employee challenge the conduct of an inquiry officer after having participated in the proceedings without raising any objection?
- Does the failure to supply a copy of an inquiry report to an accused employee automatically invalidate a disciplinary order?
- A. Alangarasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu And AnotherPTCL 1989 FC. 102 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
- A. Alangarasamy vs State of Tam 1 L Nadu And Another1989 MLD 1493 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
- A Bdullah vs S.D.M., Sukkur and others1989 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking to restrain police interference and assert his right to run a commercial business exhibiting motion pictures on VCR and TV. He claimed protection under Article 18 of the Constitution based on commercial TV and VCR apparatus licences held by his family members. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition on grounds of prior dismissal of a similar petition, lack of clean hands, non-joinder of licence-holders, expired licences, and showing films at a location other than the premises designated in the licences. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a licence for possession or commercial trade of TV and VCR apparatus under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 does not authorize public exhibition of films. Public exhibition remains strictly governed by the Cinematograph Act 1918 and the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979, which require certified films and licensed venues. Freedom of trade under Article 18 is subject to lawful regulatory frameworks.
Questions settled- Does a commercial licence for possessing a TV and VCR apparatus under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 authorize public exhibition of films?
- Is the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution absolute or subject to statutory licensing regulations?
- Can public exhibition of films on VCR be conducted at premises other than those specifically designated in the relevant statutory licences?
- Can a second constitutional petition be maintained on grounds identical to a previously dismissed petition without showing new circumstances?
- A Bdul Rehman vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1989 PLD Supreme Court 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court concerning a mutation of inheritance. The core legal question addressed is whether the High Court ought to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with mutation orders of inheritance when a civil suit regarding the same subject-matter is already pending before a Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction, affirming the established practice that revenue mutation orders are subject to the ultimate decision of a civil court of general jurisdiction, which provides an adequate alternative remedy. The key principle laid down is that resort to a civil suit is an adequate alternative remedy in matters of inheritance mutations, and the High Court properly declines constitutional interference during the pendency of such civil proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a civil suit constitute an adequate alternative remedy against an inheritance mutation order?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with mutation orders of inheritance while a civil suit is pending between the parties?
- A 1 Hotel Ltd. vs Muhammad Akram1989 PLC 825 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
- A & B Food Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax1989 PTD 562 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
- 1. Nishat Mills Ltd. (M/s.) 2. Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. (M/s.) 3. ChakwalPTCL 1989 CL. 81 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- 1. Kohinoor Industries Ltd., Faisalabad. 2. Ayesha Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore. 3.PTCL 1989 CL. 33 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst). Naziran vs District Judge, Dera Ghazi KhanK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Shafiqa vs MehmoodunissaK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 39 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Sairan Bibi vs Mirpur Development Authority through ItsK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 6 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfqar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1987 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Hussain vs The Secretary /Chairman Ministry of Railways,1987 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of being barred by time. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient justification existed to condone the long delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that no justification was made out for the condonation of the delay, and consequently found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be entertained without sufficient cause being shown for the entirety of the delay.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal as barred by time warrants interference when no justification for condonation of delay is shown?
- Is a party entitled to condonation of a long delay in filing an appeal without establishing sufficient cause?
- Zulfiqar and others vs The State1987 MLD 839 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar alias Zulfi and another vs The State1987 MLD 3140 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1987 MLD 1608 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The State and others1987 MLD 2184(1) · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-17Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali And Others vs Muhammad Yaqub And Others1987 P Cr. L J 813 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ahmad vs Nabila BibiPLD 1987 Lahore561 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- Zubair Ahmed vs Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. and Another1987 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for an interim injunction arose from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff, who was appointed as an agent and dealer to run a petrol pump and service station by the defendants. The plaintiff invested a substantial sum exceeding two lacs in constructing, renovating, and equipping the site with the defendants' consent and authority. The core legal question was whether the dealership agreement constituted an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act, which could not be arbitrarily terminated to the prejudice of that interest, or a mere licence terminable at will under the agreement. The court held that where an agent's stakes are higher and capital has been committed based on assurances, it raises a prima facie case of an agency coupled with an interest, warranting the maintenance of the status quo through an interim injunction until evidence is recorded. The key principle laid down is that while ordinary licences or employments terminable by notice do not ground injunctive relief, exceptions exist for agencies coupled with an interest or licences coupled with a grant where premature termination would inflict irreparable harm on established investments.
Questions settled- Whether a petrol pump dealership agreement involving substantial capital investment by the agent constitutes an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act?
- Under what circumstances can a contract of agency be cancelled or revoked by a principal when the agent has an interest in the subject-matter?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to an interim injunction to restrain the premature termination of a business agency where uprooting from an established business would cause irreparable injury?
- Zonal Chief Muslim Commercial Bank vs Ubedullah And Others1987 PLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- Zil Muhammadand Another vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a murder trial where three domestic servants were accused of killing their 70-year-old employer in his room during the night. The trial court convicted all three accused under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the active assailant to death and the co-accused to life imprisonment. The High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the active assailant but acquitted the two co-accused. The complainant challenged the acquittal, while the convicted assailant challenged his conviction. The core legal question concerned the proper appreciation of ocular and corroborative evidence by the High Court in acquitting the co-accused despite finding the eyewitness testimony credible. The Supreme Court granted leave in both petitions to examine whether the High Court followed established principles for the appreciation of evidence and to review the entire evidentiary record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court followed the well-established principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases when acquitting co-accused?
- Does the apprehension of accused persons at the spot along with the crime weapon provide sufficient corroboration to ocular testimony?
- Can the conviction of a primary assailant be maintained when the role of co-accused is examined in a joint petition for leave to appeal?
- Ziauddin vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 74 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- Zia-Ud-Din vs The State1987 MLD 3178 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
- Zarmash vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Zarin Khan And 7 Other vs General Manager, Standard Steel Re-Rolling1987 PLC 255 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- Zarif Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 1353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's order permitting a private counsel to cross-examine a defence witness under the supervision and direction of the Special Public Prosecutor. The core legal question was whether a private counsel assisting the prosecution could cross-examine a defence witness (an accused person appearing as his own witness) when acting under the directions of the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. The Supreme Court held that a private pleader can examine or cross-examine a witness under the directions of the Public Prosecutor who remains in charge of the case, and that the courts below acted neither illegally nor improperly in permitting such cross-examination. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the view taken by the lower forums.
Questions settled- Whether a private counsel can cross-examine a defence witness under the directions of the Public Prosecutor?
- Does the Public Prosecutor remain in charge of the case when a private pleader assists in examining or cross-examining witnesses?
- Zarif Khan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- Zarif Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 1753(2) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner could be granted the relief sought through the judicial process. During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner elected not to press the petition, indicating an intention to seek alternative relief by approaching the Provincial Government directly. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. The judgment establishes the principle that where a petitioner voluntarily abandons their claim in favor of pursuing administrative or executive remedies, the court will dismiss the petition accordingly without adjudicating the merits of the underlying legal dispute.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a petition before the Supreme Court to seek relief from the Provincial Government?
- What is the effect of a counsel stating that a petition is not pressed?
- Zardad Khan vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 181 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- Zardad Khan And Others vs Government of N. W.F.P. And Other1987 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a regular first appeal in a land acquisition matter. The appellants' land was acquired for the Pakistan Military Academy Kakul, and an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector. The appellants filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the court concerning the amount of compensation and apportionment, and subsequently withdrew the awarded compensation amount without explicitly endorsing a protest on the receipt. The lower courts dismissed their reference as not maintainable under the second proviso to subsection (2) of section 31 of the Act. The core legal question was whether the acceptance of compensation without protest subsequent to filing a reference application bars the reference under section 31(2). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a claimant has already filed an application for reference under section 18 before withdrawing the compensation, the receipt of the amount subsequently is deemed to be under protest and does not constitute a waiver of the right to seek enhanced compensation.
Questions settled- Whether an application for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is rendered not maintainable if the claimant subsequently receives the compensation amount without explicit endorsement of protest?
- Does the receipt of compensation after filing a reference application amount to a waiver of the right to seek enhanced compensation?
- How should the provisos to subsection (2) of section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be interpreted in relation to a prior reference application?
- Zamurrad Khan And Others vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellants. The Federal Investigating Agency registered a case against the appellants under section 6 of the Passport Act 1974 and sections 17 and 18 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, but submitted a challan against a co-accused alone. During trial, a private individual applied through the Special Public Prosecutor to summon the appellants as additional accused, which the Special Judge accepted. The core legal question was whether the Special Judge could summon accused persons without the previous sanction of the Federal Government under section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The Supreme Court held that while a complaint can be presented by anyone without prior authorization, the Special Judge is barred from taking cognizance or issuing summonses without the previous sanction of the Federal Government or the expiry of the statutory 60-day deeming period under the proviso. The Court laid down that summoning accused persons prior to obtaining or deeming the required governmental sanction renders the summoning order illegal and without lawful authority, and the Special Court must await the sanction or the statutory period before proceeding.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Judge can issue summonses to accused persons under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 without the previous sanction of the Federal Government?
- Is a complaint before a Special Court required to be presented or endorsed by the Federal Government or an authorized agent?
- What is the effect of the proviso to section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 when a complaint is not accompanied by the previous sanction of the Federal Government?
- Zamir Hasan and another vs Mst. Batul1987 MLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
- Zamir Akhtar and others Appellants vs The State1987 MLD 1730 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
- Zamir Ahmad vs Muhammad Zulfiqar And 4 Others1987 P Cr. L J 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- Zamarud Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner was convicted in absentia under section 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code by a Special Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal questions involve whether proceedings conducted ex parte without proper notice are void ab initio, whether a conviction can be sustained solely upon the exculpatory statement of an acquitted co-accused, and whether sufficient cause existed for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised deserved consideration, granted leave to appeal, and ordered the suspension of the petitioner's sentence alongside release on bail pending final disposal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court should examine the merits and sufficiency of cause for delay when ex parte proceedings and convictions in absentia are challenged.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings conducted ex parte and in the absence of the accused without notice are void ab initio?
- Can a criminal conviction be legally sustained solely on the exculpatory statement of a co-accused who was himself acquitted?
- Whether lack of knowledge of ex parte proceedings constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Zaman Mahndi and another vs Salehun1987 CLC 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-26Read full judgment →
- Zakria M. Fazil vs Messrs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1987 CLC 705 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
- Zakir Hussain And 2 Others vs The State1987 P Cr. L J 54 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- Zakaullah And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously declined the petitioners' request for pre-arrest bail. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners, who were co-accused in the same criminal matter, were entitled to the same relief of pre-arrest bail as had been granted to another co-accused, Muhammad Amin, in a related proceeding. The Supreme Court observed that the State did not dispute that the petitioners' case was currently on par with that of the co-accused who had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and admitted the petitioners to pre-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The Court established the principle that while bail may be granted based on the current state of investigation, it remains subject to cancellation if subsequent evidence emerges during the investigation that prima facie implicates the accused in offences punishable by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years. The petitioners were directed to join the investigation.
Questions settled- Whether a co-accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail if their case is on par with another co-accused who has already been granted such relief?
- Can bail granted during the investigation stage be cancelled if subsequent evidence emerges indicating guilt for serious offences?
- Zakar Hussain vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- Zainab Bai and 2 Other vs Shafiuddin1987 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- Zaid Akhtar, General Manager, Administration, Millat Tractors Ltd. vs Muhammad Saleem Rehaan, Clerk Grade-III, Finance Section And Another1987 PLC 678 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- Zaibun Nisa Begum vs Pakistan Coast Guards and another1987 MLD 883 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Zahoorul Haq And Others vs Prof. Javed Jiwan Mall And Another1987 PCr.LJ 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Hussain vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Hussain And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
- Zahoor alias Zahoori and another vs The State1987 MLD 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ali vs Dr. Haji Abdul Sattar through his Legal Heirs1987 CLC 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Alam vs Sharaf Hussain1987 MLD 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1987 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction under Section 302 and Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of a student and injuries inflicted upon others during a college altercation. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the incident was a spontaneous student fight lacking the requisite intent for murder, and contested the High Court's enhancement of the fine imposed as compensation to the deceased's heirs. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, finding that the medical evidence—specifically the three fatal stab wounds to the chest and abdomen inflicted exclusively by the petitioner—conclusively established the intention to murder. The Court further upheld the enhancement of the fine, noting that the amount was reasonable given current economic inflation. While the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, it directed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of his sentence, affirming that no re-appraisal of evidence was warranted.
Questions settled- Does the infliction of multiple stab wounds to vital organs by an accused demonstrate the necessary intent for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an enhancement of a fine for compensation to the heirs of a deceased person legally justified in light of economic inflation?
- Are jail authorities required to grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the computation of sentences?
- Zahoor Ahmad vs Riazuddin and others1987 MLD 2878 · Board of Revenue · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad And 3 Others vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- Zahir Shah And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- Zahir Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Amina Begum1987 MLD 436 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- Zahid vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- Zahid Iqbal vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-11Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain Alias Munna And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
- Zahid Bajwa vs The State1987 MLD 3084 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
- Zahid Ali and 2 others vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zahid Ali And 2 Other vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zahi Dabano vs Ch. Abdul Waheed1987 MLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- Zaheeruddin Babar vs Karachi Development Authority and others1987 MLD 744 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- Zaheeruddin And 6 Other vs Messrs Allibas International Ltd.1987 PLC 500 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed vs The State1987 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1841 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah Khan And 5 Others vs Maqbool And 3 Other1987 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against an order of the Settlement Commissioner, which had cancelled an allotment of surplus land made to the appellants' predecessor-in-interest, Nasrullah Khan. Nasrullah Khan had obtained an initial allotment based on a verified claim and later applied to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for a re-classification of soil based on Khasra Girdawari entries for Rabi 1947, claiming entitlement to additional produce index units. The Chief Settlement Commissioner directed a check of the special Jamabandi, leading to an additional land allotment. Subsequent revision petitions by respondents resulted in the Settlement Commissioner setting aside the additional allotment, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the effect and application of paragraphs 29 and 58(a) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and paragraphs 7.49 and 7.51 of the Land Record Manual regarding soil classification and changes in modes of irrigation. The Supreme Court observed that a crucial administrative order passed by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 5th November 1968 had escaped consideration by both the Settlement authorities and the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the matter required re-examination in light of the unconsidered order.
Questions settled- What is the effect of the application of paragraphs 7.49 and 7.51 of the Land Record Manual and paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme to the re-classification of land?
- Does a change in the mode of irrigation for a particular crop amount to a change in the classification of the soil itself under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner interfere with an order passed by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Zafar Iqbal Zahid vs Messrs Cotton Export Corporation of1987 PLC 842 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1987 MLD 2698 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal Asif vs The Director General (Extension), Livestock 6 Dairy1987 PLC (C.S.) 701 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 212 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-30Read full judgment →
- Zafar Hussain vs Shoiab Ullah and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- Zafar etc. vs The State1987 MLD 2624 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-28Read full judgment →
- Zafar And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali Alias Mastana vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- Zafar Alam vs The State1987 MLD 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
- Z Ulfiq a R a HM a D vs Nabila Bibi1987 PLD Lahore 561 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- Z Ainab Bai and 2 Others vs Shafiuddin1987 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →