Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd . vs Messrs PAKAISIA (Pvt.) Ltd.1987 MLD 2493 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ MASIH vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 90 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 156 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ ASHRAF vs HAFIZ AHMAD ANSARI1987 MLD 89 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• Syed WASIHUDDIN AHMED vs STATE1987 MLD 1555 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ Alias MAKA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMED SHAH vs Mst. JAMILA AKHTAR1987 MLD 2797 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMED CHAUDHRY vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Through Chief Secretary And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 959 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-23Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs Messrs JOHNSON AND PHILIPS (PAK.) Ltd.1987 PLC 135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others1987 MLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs Dr. A.K. QURESHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ITTEHAD1987 PLC (C.S.) 192 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD MAKHAN vs Rao IFTIKHAR AHMAD and others1987 MLD 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2683 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, ARIFWALA1987 CLC 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE and another1987 MLD 2740 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1191 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD And Another vs THATTA CEMENT COMPANY, MAKLI1987 PLC 155 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD and 8 others vs AMINA BIBI and 12 others1987 CLC 328 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD And 3 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04
  leave to appealsuppression of injuriesmurderself-defenceFirst Information Reportgrave and sudden provocationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioners' convictions and sentences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns the effect of the prosecution's suppression of multiple injuries sustained by two of the accused petitioners in the First Information Report and subsequent statements, and whether the defence version of the occurrence—alleging self-defence and grave and sudden provocation—was properly appraised by the courts below. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the unexplained suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the initial report and witness statements requires a deeper examination of whether the defence version represents the true account of the incident. The key principle laid down is that the suppression of material injuries on the person of the accused by the prosecution casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and necessitates a careful appraisal of the alternative defence version.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when injuries sustained by the accused persons are suppressed in the First Information Report?
  • Whether the failure of the courts below to properly appraise the defence version where accused injuries are concealed warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the omission of injuries in statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermine the credibility of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
• MUSA and others vs ASAN DAS and others1987 MLD 479 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-29Read full judgment →
• MURSALEEN vs GHULAM SARWAR AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• MURID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 368 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-27Read full judgment →
• MURID HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD LAL1987 CLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08
  pre-emptionco-sharerowner of the estateShamilatcivil revisionrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the grounds of being a co-sharer in the suit property and an owner of the estate. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff was not a co-sharer and that the defendant-vendee was also an owner of the estate. The appellate court reversed this decision. On revision, the High Court examined the revenue records and held that a person who is merely a sharer in the 'Shamilat' (common land) appertaining to a Khata, but has no share in the specific land sold, does not qualify as a 'co-sharer' for pre-emption purposes. Furthermore, the Court ruled that to qualify as an 'owner of the estate', a party must own culturable land assessed to land revenue. Since the defendant-vendee was proved to be an owner of the estate, his rights were at par with the pre-emptor. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the appellate decree, and dismissed the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person who only holds a share in the Shamilat appertaining to a Khata qualify as a co-sharer in the specific land sold from that Khata for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • What criteria must be met for a person to be considered an owner of the estate in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a plaintiff introduce new documents to support their affirmative case after closing their affirmative evidence and reserving the right to rebuttal only?
  Read full judgment →
• MURID AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2202 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUREED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 256 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUREED vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1635 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
• MUREED HUSSAIN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 912 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUREED HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987PCr.LJ 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUREED And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2154 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUREED AHMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesrevenge motivecriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner Mureed Ahmad under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death for the murder of Ahmad. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the extreme penalty of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life on the ground that the murder was committed in revenge for the prior killing of the petitioner's brother. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment on the ground of retaliation or revenge is not justified unless there is clear and established evidence on record connecting the deceased to the prior homicide. The key principle laid down is that to claim mitigation of sentence on the basis of a retaliatory motive or family feud, the accused must establish through evidence on record that the deceased was responsible for the antecedent death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of death can be reduced to imprisonment for life on the ground of revenge without supporting evidence on record establishing the retaliatory motive?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to a lesser penalty when evidence fails to prove that the deceased was responsible for the antecedent death of the accused's relative?
  Read full judgment →
• MURATAB ALI vs D.I.-G. OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE, SARGODHA And 31987 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
• MURAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• MURAD vs KARAM And Other1987 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25
  inheritancelimited ownercustomary lawMuslim Personal Lawgiftreversioner suitleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over inheritance following the termination of a limited estate held under custom. The core legal question involved the validity of a gift made in 1953 by a limited owner, Mst. Karam Bibi, and the subsequent devolution of property upon the termination of her life estate under the relevant Shariat application statutes. The Supreme Court held that a limited owner could not competently gift the property, particularly where an earlier decree in a reversioner's suit annulling the gift had attained finality, and that upon the termination of the limited estate under custom, the estate devolved upon the heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. The key principle laid down is that limited estates under custom stand terminated by subsequent legislation, requiring inheritance to be determined strictly under Muslim Shariat law while ignoring invalid alienations made by limited owners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a limited owner under custom can competently make a valid gift of property pertaining to the limited estate?
  • How does the termination of a limited estate under custom affect prior alienations and subsequent inheritance rights?
  • Are heirs entitled to inherit according to Muslim Personal Law upon the termination of a life estate?
  Read full judgment →
• MURAD ALI vs COMMISSIONER WITH POWER OF MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, And 12 OtherK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 43 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MURAD ALI and 3 others vs SANAULLAH1987 CLC 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUQQARRAB KHAN vs Messrs QUALITY STEEL MILL WORKS LTD.1987 PLC 4 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-04Read full judgment →
• MUQARRAB JAHAN BEGUM vs SIKANDAR ALI KHAN and 2 others1987 PLD Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUQARRAB JAHAN BEGUM vs SIKANDAR ALI KHAN And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUQADAR And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05
  vicarious liabilityunlawful assemblycommon objectdeadly weaponsmurderhouse trespasscriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the conviction and sentences of the appellants under sections 148, 449, and 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and rioting committed during an unlawful assembly. The core legal question examined was the vicarious liability of the appellants for murder under the second part of section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, where the established common object of the assembly was merely to commit house trespass by show of force, and whether the mere possession of deadly weapons raises an automatic presumption of knowledge that murder was likely to be committed. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants did not share the common object of murder nor had the knowledge that murder was likely to be committed, as evidenced by their failure to use their weapons despite ample opportunity. The conviction was accordingly altered from murder under section 302/149 to house trespass under section 452 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The key principle laid down is that the second part of section 149 requires positive perception and cognition amounting to a 'likelihood' of the offence being committed, which cannot be presumed merely from the carrying of deadly weapons if the subsequent conduct of the accused negatives such knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere possession of deadly weapons by members of an unlawful assembly raises an automatic presumption of knowledge that murder was likely to be committed under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can members of an unlawful assembly formed with the common object of house trespass be held vicariously liable for murder committed independently by another member?
  • What degree of cognition and perception is required by the expression 'knew to be likely to be committed' under the second part of section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Munshi ALLAH RAKHA vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, LODHRAN1987 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-07-11Read full judgment →
• MUNSHI AHMAD And Others vs Maulvi ABDUL HANNA N1987 P Cr. L J 2499 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUNIR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 964 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMED RANA vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 944 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs SAMIULLAH KHAN And Another1987 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27
  Section 12(2) CPCnecessary partiesproper partiesfraud and collusioncivil revisionimpleadment of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions arising from a common order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision to implead two Advocates as respondents in applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had sought to remove these Advocates from the array of respondents, arguing they were neither necessary nor proper parties but merely witnesses. The core legal question was whether Advocates who allegedly colluded with the petitioner to file written statements admitting a claim, thereby facilitating a decree through fraud, can be impleaded as respondents in proceedings challenging that decree under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Advocates were properly impleaded as respondents given the allegations of collusion and fraud in obtaining the decrees. The key principle laid down is that individuals, including Advocates, who are alleged to have actively participated in the fraud or collusion that led to a decree, are proper parties to proceedings challenging that decree under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can Advocates who allegedly colluded to obtain a decree through fraud be impleaded as respondents in an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are persons alleged to have participated in the fraud that led to a decree necessary or proper parties in proceedings challenging that decree?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs M.I. SAMI1987 PLC 330 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD AKHTAR vs Mistri FAZAL AHMAD1987 MLD 345 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another1987 CLC 319 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LALAMUSA vs PUNJAB APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1987 PLC (C.S.) 497 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GUJRAT Through Administrator, Municipal1987 SCMR 1340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19
  service lawremoval from servicebiasmunicipal committeecivil servantadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court, which had decreed the respondent's suit challenging his removal from service. The respondent, a confirmed Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee, Gujrat, was found guilty of unauthorized absence from duty after an inquiry conducted by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee. The Administrator ordered his removal and subsequently placed the matter before a meeting of the House of the Municipal Committee, which he presided over, and which approved the removal. The High Court, relying on precedent, held that the removal order was vitiated by bias because the Administrator participated in and presided over the meeting that confirmed his own earlier decision. The Supreme Court noted that the questions raised regarding the legality of the Administrator's participation and competency to remove the employee without confirmation by the House are of general public importance. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal for authoritative determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the participation of an Administrator who conducted a disciplinary inquiry in the subsequent committee meeting approving the removal vitiate the order on the ground of bias?
  • Is an Administrator or Chairman of a Municipal Committee independently competent to remove an employee from service without placing the matter for confirmation before the House?
  • Whether an administrative decision taken by an officer who previously acted as the inquiry officer suffers from a conflict of interest.
  Read full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHAWALPUR vs REHMAT ULLAH1987 CLC 2069 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ RAHMANI1987 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-07
  damagescivil revisionconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidencemunicipal committeeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's civil revision against concurrent findings of lower courts. The respondent had filed a civil suit for the recovery of damages against the Municipal Committee for causing structural damage to his house by diverting water, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question involved the assessment of damages and whether the lower courts misread evidence regarding the extent of damage caused to the property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the quantum of damages were unexceptionable, noting that the witness had admitted the higher figure in his oral testimony and was not properly confronted with his earlier written report. The petition was accordingly found to be without merit, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the assessment of damages?
  • Can a revision petition succeed on the ground of alleged misreading of evidence when the witness admits the fact during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR KHAN vs ZIAUL HASSAN and another1987 MLD 1105 · Board of Revenue · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs Messrs INDUS TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 289 · Labour Court · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 944 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 410 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ ULLAH KHAN And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 143 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2632 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 749 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ Alias TAJA And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 597 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ ALI SURIO vs PRESIDENT, HABIB BANK Ltd. And 4 Others1987 PLC 530 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ ALI MEHAR And Other vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 429 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ ALI KHAN BHUTTO and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUMRAIZ KHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others1987 MLD 27 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• MULTANI SOHAN HALVA, HUSSAIN AGHAHI MULTAN vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1987 CLC 1448 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05
  trade mark registrationrectification proceedingsgoodwilldistinctivenesspublici juristrade mark appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the registration of the appellant's label containing the word 'Hafiz' in class 30, due to opposition by the registered proprietor of an existing mark. The core legal question concerns whether the word 'Hafiz' is a descriptive term, title, or common to the trade, and whether the Registrar's refusal to register the appellant's similar mark was arbitrary or an improper exercise of discretion. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that findings in prior rectification proceedings under section 37 of the Trade Marks Act which had attained finality could not be challenged collaterally, and that the Registrar's finding that the respondent's mark had acquired distinctiveness through continuous use since 1963 was sound. The court laid down the principle that a specialized tribunal's exercise of discretion regarding trade mark registration and distinctiveness will not be interfered with lightly unless proven fanciful, arbitrary, or capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Can findings in a rectification proceeding that have attained finality be challenged collaterally in a subsequent appeal?
  • Whether the word 'Hafiz' can be claimed as a monopoly right or is common to the trade under the Trade Marks Act?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Registrar of Trade Marks?
  Read full judgment →
• Mullick AGHA SAFDAR vs Messrs Mullick WILAYAT HUSSAIN COMPANY and others1987 CLC 2351 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MULLAN vs THE STATE and 2 other1987 P Cr. L J 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• MULAZAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• MUKHTIAR BEGUM vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION and another1987 CLC 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR vs MOHSIN ALI SHAH And Another1987 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-17
  bail cancellationleave to appealcolumn No. 2 of challancriminal procedureinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Mohsin Ali Shah. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the cancellation of bail was warranted under the circumstances presented. Upon hearing the arguments from the petitioner, the State, and the respondent, the Supreme Court noted that the investigating officer had placed the respondent in column No. 2 of the challan, indicating that he was not considered an accused at that stage of the investigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent had not yet been summoned as an accused by the trial judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the petition. The principle established is that where an individual has been placed in column No. 2 of the challan and has not been summoned by the trial court, there is no basis for bail cancellation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for cancellation of bail maintainable against a person placed in column No. 2 of the challan who has not yet been summoned by the trial court?
  • Does the placement of an individual in column No. 2 of the challan preclude the necessity of bail cancellation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 8 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal leave to appealmurderprivate defenceweapon recoveryconvictionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed from jail against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case was that following a dispute regarding the pilferage of firewood, the petitioner attacked the deceased with a weapon, causing fatal injuries. The petitioner admitted causing the death but raised a plea of private defence of person and property, alongside a claim of mental instability. Both the trial court and the High Court rejected the plea of private defence, finding that the weapon used (a dagger) and the absence of injuries on the petitioner's person belied his version of events. The Supreme Court examined the record, affirmed the findings of the lower courts, and dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of private defence was rightly rejected and the lesser sentence of life imprisonment was justified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of private defence of person and property can be sustained when the accused bears no injuries and uses a lethal weapon like a dagger?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the rejection of a plea of private defence in a murder case?
  • Whether the uncorroborated version of the accused admitting the fatal blow while setting up self-defence is acceptable when contradicted by medical and physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR BEGUM vs ABDUL RAZZAK And Another1987 P Cr. L J 294 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD Alias GUDDU vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 372 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUJEEB-UR-REHMAN ALVI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others1987 MLD 1605 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• MUJAHID WORKERS' UNION (Regd.), REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS vs MAZDOOR1987 PLC 234 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUJAHID WORKERS UNION vs MAZDOOR UNION ETC.K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
• MUHIB ALI MANGI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SIND And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 175 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD. SHAREEF and another vs ZAFAR SAEED1987 MLD 2970 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD' HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, MUZAFFARGARH, through its1987 CLC 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  leave to appealSection 302 PPCdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesunproved motivelesser penaltysentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court for committing the murder of the deceased. The petitioner did not challenge the legality or propriety of the conviction itself. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the capital sentence was warranted given that the prosecution failed to examine any witness possessing personal knowledge of the alleged motive, leaving the underlying reasons for the shooting shrouded in mystery. Citing relevant precedents where lack of proved motive justified the lesser penalty of life imprisonment, the petitioner contended that the death penalty should not have been imposed. The Supreme Court found that the contention concerning the sentence required consideration and consequently granted leave to appeal solely to determine the question of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted on the question of sentence alone where the underlying motive for the murder is shrouded in mystery?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, PESHAWARK.L.R. 1987 Tax and Customs Cases 17 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMIR KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMUK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 29 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2031 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs Messrs. MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILES MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 581 · Labour Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN alias KALAY KHAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3029 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA vs Mst. KHAIRUNNISA and 3 others1987 CLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs KIFAYAT BAIG and another1987 MLD 315 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHEERUDDIN ANWAR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-06
  cross-examinationre-summoning witnessfair trialinterest of justicediscretionary powercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, challenged the refusal of the trial court to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination. During the trial, the petitioner's counsel was absent when the first prosecution witness was examined. Upon the counsel's arrival, a request was made to recall the witness, who was still present in court, but the trial court rejected the application, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court's discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was properly exercised. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the trial court should have permitted the cross-examination of the witness. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to afford the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witness before proceeding with the trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the power to recall a witness for cross-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a trial court permit the cross-examination of a prosecution witness if the accused's counsel was absent during the initial examination but arrived while the witness was still present?
  Read full judgment →