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.

• MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN and 5 others vs TALAY MUHAMMAD KHAN and 21987 CLC 1332 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Others vs ABDUL LATIF1987 SCMR 2032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  civil suitleave to appealdemarcation of propertySettlement Departmentconcurrent findingsjurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his regular second appeal, which had upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts in favor of the respondent. The core legal question revolved around the jurisdiction of the civil court to examine the question of demarcation and title of a property transferred by the Settlement Department. The Supreme Court held that where both parties claimed title and demarcation from the Settlement Authorities, the factual findings rendered by those authorities and subsequently concurred upon by the three civil courts regarding the distinct identities and titles of the properties were not open to scrutiny on the factual plane by the civil court. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent factual findings based on evidence regarding property demarcation and title determined by settlement authorities cannot be reopened or scrutinized by civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to scrutinize on a factual plane the demarcation and title of a property already decided by the Settlement Authorities?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts regarding the distinct identities of properties open to interference in second appeal?
  • Can a party challenge property demarcation before a civil court when both parties claim title from the Settlement Department?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3024 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR And 9 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 411 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAQIR vs D.I.-G.OF POLICE, FAISALABAD RANGE, FAISALABAD And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 898 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BANARAS vs Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS Ltd.1987 PLC 191 · Labour Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BACHAL MEMON vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BACHAL MEMON vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BABIR vs JEHANGIR1987 CLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZIZ vs Syed HASSAN ASKARI ZAIDI1987 CLC 450 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN (Deceased) Through His1987 SCMR 2015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01
  constitutional petitionbona fide purchaserland settlementallotment of landdisplaced personsfactual controversyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the refusal of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to upset an earlier land allotment made to Ahmad Din. The disputed land was originally allotted to Ahmad Din, who sold it to Muhammad Amin, who was held by the courts to be a bona fide purchaser for value. Following earlier remand proceedings, the Chief Settlement Commissioner re-examined the entitlement and genuineness of Ahmad Din's allotment and upheld it, finding his total allotted units were well within his verified entitlement. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition in limine. The core legal question was whether the factual inquiry conducted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the allottee's entitlement and the genuineness of the allotment warranted interference by the superior courts. The Supreme Court held that the determination of factual controversy by the designated authority with exclusive jurisdiction does not warrant interference unless perverse, and the conclusions drawn from original records cannot be reopened in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the protection of bona fide purchasers and the finality of factual findings by specialized settlement authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bona fide purchaser for value on the basis of public record is entitled to protection of his rights?
  • Can the superior courts interfere with the factual findings of a designated settlement authority in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether an inquiry conducted under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is open to re-examination on factual disputes by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM And Another vs TALIB HUSSAIN And Another1987 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18
  habeas corpusabductioncriminal registrationminor custodypolice recoverySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following an impugned order directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioners. The factual background involved the abduction of a six-month-old minor from the lawful custody of the mother, Mst. Shahnaz, allegedly by one Jamil with the connivance of the petitioners. This incident occurred while the mother was attending High Court proceedings regarding a habeas corpus petition filed for her own recovery. Despite a High Court order for the production of the child through police intervention, the minor remained unrecovered. The mother expressed grave apprehension regarding the child's safety, citing the prior killing of her first daughter by her in-laws. The core legal question was whether the High Court's direction to register a criminal case under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case did not justify any interference with the High Court's order, noting the continued failure to produce the minor. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce a minor child in a habeas corpus proceeding justify the registration of a criminal case against the alleged abductors?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order directing the registration of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs SECRETARY FOOD And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 915 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs Prof. KHALID MUMTAZ and 3 others1987 CLC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYYUB And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycriminal procedureevidentiary discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the Lahore High Court in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of participating in a violent altercation resulting in fatalities and injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail pending trial, given contentions regarding false implication, the specific roles attributed to them, and discrepancies between the alleged weapons used and the nature of the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the dimensions of the injuries on the prosecution witnesses appeared inconsistent with the weapons allegedly used by the petitioners, necessitating further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle established is that where there are significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, such as the nature of injuries not matching the alleged weapons, a case for further inquiry is made out, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the alleged weapon used and the nature of injuries sustained by victims constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the determination of vicarious liability in a criminal case a matter to be decided at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1704 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE CHAIRMAN, ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Supreme Court 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10
  double jeopardydepartmental proceedingscompulsory retirementcriminal acquittalservice lawWAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rulesconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Sub-Divisional Officer at WAPDA, challenged his compulsory retirement imposed through departmental proceedings following his acquittal by a Special Judge in a criminal trial involving charges of illegal gratification. The petitioner contended that the departmental punishment violated Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which protects against double jeopardy, arguing that he could not be punished for the same charges for which he had been acquitted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the protection against double punishment under Article 13 applies specifically to criminal prosecutions for the same offence. The Court clarified that the term 'offence' in this constitutional context refers to a crime punishable under criminal law. Consequently, the Court ruled that departmental proceedings and the subsequent imposition of penalties under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules are distinct from criminal prosecution and are not barred by the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, even if the underlying facts are the same as those in a criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar departmental proceedings against a civil servant who has been acquitted of criminal charges based on the same facts?
  • Does the term 'offence' in Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass penalties imposed during departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a civil servant be subjected to departmental disciplinary action after being acquitted of criminal charges for the same conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB & BROS. vs CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LOCAL1987 MLD 2440 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD and 4 others1987 CLC 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYOOB AND GOHAR KHAN AWAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND Through Chief Secretary And 4 Others CHIEFSECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 5 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 226 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE WARSI vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAKAKHAIL1987 PLC 787 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLANI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1987 MLD 2280 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 819 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 656 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE1987 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11
  leave to appealdeath sentencemurderwithholding witnessre-appraisement of evidencematrimonial disputesentence mitigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a sentence under section 324 for injuring a prosecution witness. The prosecution case alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused attacked the deceased with daggers due to a matrimonial dispute regarding the divorce of the petitioner's wife, Mst. Maqboolan, who was the deceased's daughter. The defense contended that the prosecution withheld Mst. Maqboolan, an essential eye-witness whose presence at the scene was admitted by prosecution witnesses during cross-examination, thereby concealing the true version of events involving a sudden altercation and self-defense. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal restricted to the question of sentence alone, noting that the concurrent findings on evidence by the courts below warranted re-appraisement specifically regarding the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted solely on the question of sentence when the conviction has been concurrently affirmed by the courts below?
  • Does the withholding of a material eye-witness by the prosecution warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether re-appraisement of evidence is permissible on the question of sentence in a criminal appeal arising from a capital punishment case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR1987 PLD Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR WITH1987 PLD Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Raja AZHAR MAHM00D And Another1987 SCMR 1979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-29
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicidemurderself-controlcriminal appealaltercation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code to the respondent. The incident arose from a fatal altercation between two co-employees wherein the deceased allegedly teased the respondent by calling him a 'Chamcha'. The High Court had treated the fight as a single continuing transaction involving grave and sudden provocation due to head injuries sustained during the scuffle. The Supreme Court held that the utterance of the word 'Chamcha' and the ensuing scuffle did not constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to deprive a person of ordinary sense and calmness of their power of self-control, particularly given the delayed use of the firearm after the initial separation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding, altered the conviction from culpable homicide not amounting to murder to murder, and substituted the sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether calling a person a 'Chamcha' constitutes grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Did the High Court err in treating two separate stages of a fight as a single continuing transaction for the purpose of granting the benefit of mitigation?
  • What is the proper test for determining the gravity of provocation in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR And Another1987 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1987 CLC 686 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22
  first rent appealejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantburden of proofgood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal was filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Sukkur, which ordered the eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need. The respondent landlord sought ejectment under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, asserting that his two sons were jobless and required the shop for business. The appellant, who had been running his business in the premises for over twenty-five years, contended that the landlord's sons were already employed in business and that the application was filed in bad faith shortly after a previous ejectment application was dismissed. The High Court of Sindh observed that the burden of proving good faith lies heavily on the landlord, especially when uprooting a long-established business. Since the evidence showed the sons were already carrying on business and the landlord failed to prove why their current locations were unsuitable, the court held that the landlord failed to discharge his burden of proof. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere assertion of a landlord that premises are required for his children satisfy the requirement of 'good faith' under rent laws?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the bona fide personal requirement of rented premises?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction on the ground of his sons being jobless if evidence shows they are already actively carrying on business elsewhere, without proving those existing premises are unsuitable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Mst. FATEH BIBI1987 P Cr. L J 2028 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Messrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING C0. Ltd.1987 PLC 568 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Messrs ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI1987 PLC 518 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs KAUSAR PARVEEN and another1987 CLC 256 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22
  KhulaDissolution of marriageWrit jurisdictionFamily CourtRe-appraisal of evidenceJurisdictional defectConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a Family Court decree dissolving the petitioner's marriage with the respondent on the ground of Khula. The petitioner contended that the dissolution was invalid because the respondent failed to prove her allegations of cruelty and because no consideration was returned. The core legal question was whether a Khula decree is sustainable absent proof of specific cruelty and whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, can re-appraise evidence to overturn a factual finding. The Court held that the right of Khula is established upon the Qazi's satisfaction that the wife has developed intense hatred for her husband, rendering a harmonious union impossible. The failure to prove specific cruelty does not negate the wife's right to Khula if the court is satisfied regarding the breakdown of the marriage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional defects and does not permit the re-appraisal of evidence or the correction of mere errors of fact or law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court re-appraise evidence in writ jurisdiction to overturn a factual finding of a Family Court?
  • Does the failure to prove specific allegations of cruelty preclude a wife from obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
  • Is a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction immune from interference in writ proceedings merely because the decision is allegedly incorrect in fact or law?
  • Is a wife liable to return consideration for Khula if no benefits were received during the marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs JALAL DIN And Another1987 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  suit for possessionevacuee propertyadverse possessionrevision petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition. The matter originated from a suit for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas brought by the respondent. While the trial court initially dismissed the suit, the appellate court partially accepted the respondent's appeal, finding him to be the owner of 19 Marlas of the land transferred to his father as evacuee property, which was in the possession of the petitioner. The appellate court directed the petitioner to remove the malba within sixty days. The petitioner challenged this decision via a revision petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon hearing the parties and reviewing the record, determined that the petitioner failed to establish that he had matured his title over the suit land through adverse possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can successfully resist a suit for possession of land without establishing that they have matured their title over the suit land through adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs FAMILY JUDGE and 2 others1987 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM MOGHAL, SECRETARY GENERAL, M.C.P. EMPLOYEES'1987 PLC 715 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM JAVED alias Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs HABIB BANK LTD., LAHORE1987 CLC 957 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16
  appreciation of evidencecriminal appealocular testimonyleave to appealconvictionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and maintained their convictions and sentences of life imprisonment for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case arose from an incident on 28-7-1980 in District Lahore, resulting in the death of one Zulfikar and injuries to Abdul Khaliq. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, including that of the injured witness, Abdul Khaliq, who was found to be disinterested and impartial. The trial court and the High Court had both accepted the prosecution's evidence, noting the deceased sustained eighteen injuries, including a firearm injury. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the evidence was not worthy of reliance and had not been properly appreciated. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that there was no infraction of any rule or principle of law governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the appreciation of evidence by lower courts when no rule or principle of law has been violated?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness who is neither related nor inimical to the accused sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM Alias NOOR NISHAN1987 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-10
  special leave to appealminoritysale-deedcivil suitevidentiary valuebirth and death registeragricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' revision petition in limine. The underlying dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent seeking possession of agricultural land she had previously sold to the petitioners via a sale-deed dated 23-1-1978. The respondent alleged that she was a minor at the time of the transaction, rendering her incompetent to execute the sale. While the trial court initially dismissed her suit, the Additional District Judge subsequently decreed it in her favor, a decision upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent was indeed a minor at the time of the sale-deed's execution, specifically concerning the evidentiary value and linkage of the birth and death register extract relied upon by the respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners' contention regarding the lack of evidence linking the birth record to the respondent required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the status quo to continue.

  Questions settled

  • Does an extract from a register of births and deaths constitute sufficient proof of minority without evidence linking the document to the specific individual?
  • Can a sale-deed executed by a minor be set aside in a suit for possession?
  • What is the standard for granting leave to appeal in a civil revision matter involving disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1987 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 5 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 3 others vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 21987 MLD 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias ACHHU vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1631 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias ACHHI and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2311(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIM ZIA vs THE CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY and 7 others1987 MLD 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF vs THE STATE-- Respondent-1987 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05
  criminal appealmurderunlawful assemblyprivate defenseappreciation of evidencehigh court reversalfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the trial court's acquittal of several accused and its conviction of Muhammad Asif under section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, instead convicting the appellants under sections 148, 307 read with 149, and 302 read with 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, imposing sentences including death and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution version of an unprovoked armed attack by the appellants or the defence version of private defense and a prior altercation was established by the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the defence's improbable version, finding that the appellants were the aggressors who had ambushed the complainant party. The key principle laid down is that the plea of private defense must be evaluated against the probabilities of the case, the nature of injuries, and the physical evidence, and cannot be sustained when contradicted by established facts and common sense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and partial conviction recorded by the trial court?
  • Does the plea of right of private defense stand established when inconsistent with the probabilities and physical evidence of the case?
  • Whether multiple injuries caused by two types of firearms negate the defence version of an isolated aggressor party?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF Alias ASU vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1251 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRIF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1845 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SHARAK HAIDER And Other1987 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-26
  acquittalleave to appealappreciation of evidenceocular testimonyinjured witnessesbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court and the High Court in a murder and murderous assault case. The core legal question is whether the courts below properly applied the established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases while rejecting the ocular testimony of injured and independent eye-witnesses and granting acquittal to the accused. The Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the courts below for rejecting the testimony of the eye-witnesses and acquitting the respondents who were attributed active roles were unsatisfactory, especially given that two eye-witnesses sustained injuries and the accused were known. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the proper appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the courts below properly applied the well-established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases?
  • Can the testimony of injured eye-witnesses be discarded without satisfactory reasons when their presence at the spot is established?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD and another1987 CLC 2390 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Mst. SALMA BIBI1987 MLD 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Mst. HANIFAN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 94 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN IN THE MINISTRY1987 CLC 2071 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Another1987 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  service lawdepartmental proceedingsdismissal from serviceshow-cause noticePunjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rulesshortage of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his dismissal from service and the imposition of a financial penalty. The petitioner, a civil servant, was accused of a shortage in wheat supply during his tenure at a procurement centre. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, following which he was issued a show-cause notice, afforded an opportunity of being heard, and subsequently dismissed from service with a penalty imposed for the alleged shortage. The core legal question was whether the departmental proceedings and the subsequent dismissal were conducted in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted by the authorities in terminating the petitioner's services and imposing the penalty was strictly in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court found the Service Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal justified and refused to interfere with the impugned order, thereby dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental proceedings conducted under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were procedurally valid in the instant case?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to relief against dismissal if the departmental authority followed the prescribed procedure and provided an opportunity of being heard?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs AHMAD and another1987 MLD 2665(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SANIK and 6 others vs THE STATE and 6 others1987 MLD 3136 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN vs MUMTAZ ULLAH KHAN And Another1987 P Cr. L J 145 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN And Others vs ADMINISTRATOR (RP)_SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE And Other1987 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-13
  residual propertiesevacuee propertytransfer of propertybuilding siteconstitutional jurisdictionfindings of factpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from three appeals raising common questions concerning the interpretation of "available properties" and "possession" under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, framed pursuant to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved the entitlement of applicants to the transfer of building sites based on possession and construction prior to the target date of 1st January 1976, and the extent of interference by High Courts in constitutional jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that where statutory authorities, after spot inspection, recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellants failed to establish permanent construction or possession prior to the target date of 1st January 1976, such factual determinations could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that claimants of building sites must strictly fulfill the temporal requirements of possession and construction as stipulated under the Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by residual property tribunals regarding the date of construction can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What constitutes a "building site" and "possession" for the purposes of claiming transfer under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties?
  • Are claimants entitled to the transfer of a building site if they fail to prove permanent construction prior to the target date of 1st January 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN And Another vs GHULAM RABBANI1987 PLC 298 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-18
  leave to appealocular evidenceinterested witnessre-appraisal of evidencemurder convictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with a deceased co-accused, murdered the victim due to a motive involving illicit relations with the co-accused's daughter. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses, particularly an alleged independent witness, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, or whether the testimony suffered from such variations and improbabilities as to render it unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact reached by the lower courts did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court rejected the contention that the witnesses were interested, finding that the alleged connection of the independent witness to the complainant was too remote to suggest false implication. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for re-appraisal of evidence and dismissed the petition, affirming that minor variations in testimony do not undermine the substantive reliability of eyewitness accounts in murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of minor variations and improbabilities in the testimony of an eyewitness necessarily render their evidence unreliable?
  • Can a witness be considered 'interested' due to a remote or old connection with the complainant party?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs BAHAWAL1987 MLD 3043 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs ASHIQ ALI and others1987 MLD 356 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 4 others vs MUHAMMAD1987 MLD 199 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Alias ACHHU vs The STATE1987 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancecompromisecommutation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, a conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. Upon filing a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the father of the deceased appeared and submitted an affidavit confirming a compromise had been reached. This compromise involved compensation and the marriage of two girls from the accused's family to two boys from the deceased's family. The complainant explicitly stated he had forgiven the accused. The petitioner's counsel requested that this compromise be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce the death sentence. The State offered no objection to this request. The Supreme Court, treating the petition as an appeal, held that the compromise constituted a valid mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction under Section 302 but commuted the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, establishing the principle that a compromise between the parties in a murder case can serve as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties in a murder case be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is it permissible for the Supreme Court to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life based on a compromise reached between the accused and the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ADIL vs RENT CONTROLLER, SARGODHA and others1987 CLC 747 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 144 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ And 2 Others vs ATA MUHAMMAD And Another1987 P Cr. L J 50 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR And Other1987 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11
  murderacquittalenhancement of sentenceocular evidenceleave to appealcriminal revisionreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder case. The convicts, Muhammad Zubair and Muhammad Zafar, challenged their convictions for the murder of Fayyaz Ahmad and causing injuries to others, while the complainant sought the reversal of the acquittal of a co-accused, Muhammad Ishaque, and the enhancement of the convicts' sentences. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the convictions based on ocular evidence, the propriety of the acquittal of the co-accused, and whether the sentences warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the convictions of the two primary accused were well-founded on the testimony of independent witnesses, including a court bailiff and injured parties, and dismissed their appeal, noting it was also time-barred. Regarding the acquittal of the co-accused, the Court declined to interfere, affirming that even if a different view of the evidence were possible, it did not constitute sufficient grounds to set aside an acquittal. Furthermore, the Court refused to enhance the sentences, finding that the initial lack of premeditation and the presence of injuries on the accused mitigated the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acquittal be set aside by the Supreme Court merely because a different view of the evidence is possible?
  • Is the testimony of a court bailiff and injured witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the absence of premeditation and the presence of injuries on the accused justify refusing an enhancement of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Rawalpindi And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-08-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1987 MLD 342 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR And 3 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 2011 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25
  criminal petitionleave to appealmurdercommon objectinterested witnessesinjured witnessesdying declarationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder case with a background of extreme enmity. The trial court had convicted several accused persons under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing some to death and others to imprisonment for life, while acquitting a few. Upon appeal, the High Court maintained certain convictions, reduced the death sentences to imprisonment for life in some instances, and acquitted several respondents. The convict-petitioners challenged their convictions, whereas the complainant sought sentence enhancement and the reversal of acquittals. The Supreme Court heard the contentions regarding the appreciation of ocular testimony, the use of an unaccepted dying declaration for corroboration, and the presence of interested witnesses bearing injuries. Finding it necessary to examine whether the evidence was properly appraised in accordance with safe administration of criminal justice, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions and ordered bailable warrants for the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration when they are considered interested witnesses?
  • Can a statement of a deceased person not formally treated as a dying declaration be utilized to corroborate ocular testimony?
  • Whether the High Court properly appraised the evidence in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice.
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 110 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR Alias KANAIRO vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 390 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ALI vs INAYAT ULLAH And Other1987 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-16
  suspension of sentencefree fightcommon intentionmurderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against an order passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court suspending the sentence of respondents who were convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in suspending the respondents' sentences on the assumption that a free fight had occurred, rendering section 34 inapplicable, without evaluating the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was erroneous as it based its opinion on assumptions rather than a careful consideration of the evidence on record. The impugned order of the High Court was consequently set aside and the appeal was allowed. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court cannot suspend a sentence or make assumptions regarding a free fight without examining the evidence on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence of the respondents on the assumption of a free fight without considering the evidence on record?
  • Can an appellate court suspend a sentence based merely on the assumption that a free fight took place between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASAR HUSSAIN, Advocate vs THE KARACHI DEVELOPMENT1987 MLD 3016 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASAR HUSSAIN vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 432 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASAD KHAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1548 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs MUHAMMAD ISLAM And Other1987 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01
  specific performanceagreement to sellconcurrent findingscivil revisionsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for the specific performance of an agreement to sell a half share in a shop, which was dismissed by the trial Court upon finding that no such agreement existed. The District Judge affirmed the dismissal in appeal, and the High Court subsequently declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts through a revision petition. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged these concurrent findings. The Supreme Court observed that the material issues raised pure questions of fact and noted that the appellant failed to point out any misreading of evidence or demonstrate that the conclusions of the lower courts were unsupported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was entirely justified in declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts when no misreading of evidence is pointed out?
  • Does the mere appendage of a signature on a deed amount to its valid execution when the executant is unaware of its contents?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, ITTEFAQ SUGAR MILLS1987 PLC 263 · Labour Court · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD RANA And Others vs IKHLAQUE AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN vs Messrs GOLDEN INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI1987 PLC 891 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2265 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD ALI Alias BAGGA vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 169 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →