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. 232594 judgments in total.
- MEHBOOB SHAH And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 14480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the concurrent convictions and sentences of death awarded to the appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Mehboob and Inayat Hussain. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony, potential conflicts between ocular and medical evidence due to the medical officer describing certain injuries as stab wounds, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and witness relationships. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence did not conflict with the ocular testimony, as the large dimensions of the injuries were consistent with heavy sharp-edged weapons like a hatchet or Toka, and the medical officer had mislabeled them due to inexperience. The Court further affirmed that the presence of the related eye-witnesses was natural and uncontradicted by any proven enmity. Upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that apparent discrepancies between medical descriptions and ocular accounts must be evaluated in light of the actual dimensions of the injuries and weapon types, and partially allowed the appeal by commuting the death sentence of the younger appellant to imprisonment for life on account of his tender age while maintaining the death sentence of the other.
Questions settled- Whether inconsistencies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries warrant the rejection of eyewitness accounts?
- Does the relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable in the absence of proven enmity?
- Can the tender age of an accused person at the time of the commission of the offense serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- MEHAR ELAHI vs NADEEM AHMAD And Another1987 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court acquitting respondent No.1 Nadeem Ahmad of a charge under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and setting aside his death sentence. The trial court had convicted the respondent based on an approver's testimony, a judicial confession recorded by a City Magistrate, an extra-judicial confession, and recoveries. However, the High Court rejected all these evidentiary items and acquitted him. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had discarded the judicial confession on dubious reasoning—specifically, merely because the magistrate noted that the accused 'appeared to be harassed' when produced, without making any explicit finding that he was tortured, maltreated, or compelled to confess. Finding sufficient grounds to re-examine the acquittal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued non-bailable warrants against respondent No.1.
Questions settled- Whether a judicial confession can be discarded solely because the recording magistrate noted the accused appeared harassed, without a finding of torture or coercion?
- Whether leave to appeal against an acquittal should be granted where the High Court relies on dubious reasoning to reject prosecution evidence?
- MEHAR ELAHI vs Maulvi GHULAM QADIR and others1987 MLD 2541 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- MCMTAZ AHMED SILK MILLS Ltd. vs DIRECTOR, SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL1987 CLC 2531 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the impugned notices and assessment orders issued by the Director, Sindh Employees Social Security, demanding social security contributions and initiating recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue. The core legal questions involved whether a regulation requiring the deposit of twenty-five percent of the disputed amount as a condition precedent for entertaining a complaint under Section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, was ultra vires, and whether recovery as arrears of land revenue could proceed without a judicial determination by a civil court. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of enabling provisions in the parent statute, the rule-making authority lacked the power to impose a twenty-five percent deposit condition, rendering Regulation No.5 ultra vires. The Court further held that while recovery as arrears of land revenue is permissible upon determination of liability through the statutory machinery of the Ordinance, prior resort to a civil court is not required. The petition was allowed accordingly, setting aside the pre-deposit requirement and restraining land revenue recovery pending the statutory decision.
Questions settled- Whether subordinate legislation can impose a mandatory deposit of a percentage of the disputed amount as a condition precedent to entertaining a complaint when the parent statute contains no such provision?
- Does the recovery of social security contributions as arrears of land revenue require prior adjudication and establishment of liability by a civil court?
- Whether the failure of an employer to maintain or produce account books empowers the Social Security Institution to assess contributions and treat them as recoverable dues?
- MAZHAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR ULLAH vs GHULAM S A RWA R and others1987 MLD 2483(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR SAEED vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR IQBAL And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN Alias GUDDOO And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-07Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR AHMAD vs Messrs MATRI PUBLICATIONS Ltd.1987 PLC 824 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
- MAZARI vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- MAYMAR HOUSING SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In re vs NOT1987 MLD 307 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- MAURICE JEAN RENE DUCROS vs THE STATE1987 P Cr. L J 41 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- Maulvi ABDUR RAHIM vs Shahzada MOHAYUDDIN1987 MLD 2460 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 challenged the election of the respondent as a Member of the National Assembly from NA-24 Chitral on multiple grounds, primarily that he was a Government contractor with a subsisting contract at the relevant time, alongside allegations of corrupt practices, voter disenfranchisement, and being a Government dues defaulter. The core legal questions involved whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements regarding witness affidavits and the proper verification of annexures, and whether the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election due to a subsisting government contract. The Peshawar High Court held that the procedural rules framed by the Election Commission under Section 62(1) requiring witnesses and affidavits to be filed with the petition are mandatory, and failure to do so renders the petition defective. Furthermore, on the merits, the evidence established that the respondent had validly transferred his contract to a third party with departmental approval long before the election, negating any disqualification. The election petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Are the procedural requirements framed by the Election Commission under Section 62(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 regarding the filing of witness lists and affidavits mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure to sign or verify annexures to an election petition in the manner laid down for pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 entail the dismissal of the petition under Section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Does a candidate maintain a subsisting government contract disqualifying them from an election if the contract was transferred to another person with departmental approval prior to the election?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish the disqualification of a candidate on the ground of being a government contractor?
- Maulvi ABDULLAH And Others vs ABDUL AZIZ And Other1987 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment upholding an oral gift of immovable property made by a grandfather to the son of a predeceased son. The petitioners contended that the gift was void due to lack of registration and failure to deliver possession, arguing that the memorandum of gift was inadmissible. The core legal questions were whether an oral gift of immovable property is valid under Muslim Law, whether such a gift requires a registered instrument, and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Muslim Law, a valid gift of immovable property can be effected orally provided the essential formalities—delivery of possession and acceptance by the donee—are satisfied. The Court affirmed that Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 excludes Muslim gifts from the operation of the Act, including the registration requirements of Section 123. Consequently, an unregistered memorandum merely acknowledging a completed oral gift does not invalidate the transaction. The Court found concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and acceptance were sufficient to uphold the gift.
Questions settled- Is an oral gift of immovable property valid under Muslim Law?
- Does the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to gifts made under Muslim Law?
- Does an unregistered memorandum of gift invalidate an otherwise valid oral gift of immovable property?
- Are the formalities of delivery of possession and acceptance essential for a valid Muslim gift of immovable property?
- Maulana MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs MUBARAK AHMED and others1987 MLD 2577 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- Maulana ABDUL WAHID vs Haji MUHAMMAD UMER and another1987 CLC 2143 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH alias MAULI and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1878 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
- MATLOOB HUSSAIN and others vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,EVACUEE TRUST1987 MLD 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mat. FATIMA BEGUM vs KAMRAN INDUSTRIES LTD. and 12 others1987 CLC 2047 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- MASTI KHAN vs AHMAD NAWAZ KHAN NIAZI, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASUR And 3 Others1987 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- Master NIZAMUDDIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 342 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- MASTER MAN's INDUSTRIES vs RAJA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES and another1987 MLD 761 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- MASTAR MAN's INDUSTRIES vs RAIA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIESK.LR. 1987 Tax and Catsoms 30 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MASRUR AHMED and 3 others vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- MASROOR AHSAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- MASOOD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1602 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- MASOOD QADIR and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
- MASOOD ANWAR Alias BHATTU vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 289(2) · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- MASJID MAIZ BIN JABAL and MADARSA BINORIA QASMI ALOOM vs SADIQ ALI1987 CLC 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQUE and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQUE And 2 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQ ALI BHOLA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2379 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQ ALI alias BHOLA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1120(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- MASHOOD AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN and 3 others1987 CLC 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
- MARINES LIMITED vs AEGUS SHIPPING CO. LTD and 4 others1987 CLC 1299 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, seeking a declaration that a foreign arbitration award made in London was unenforceable and that no valid arbitration agreement existed. The petitioner admitted that the award constituted a 'foreign award' under Section 2(1) of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937. The High Court of Sindh considered whether a party can independently petition for a declaration of unenforceability of a foreign award when the beneficiary of the award has not yet initiated enforcement proceedings. The Court held that the Arbitration Act 1940 is excluded in matters of foreign awards, which are governed solely by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937. Unlike Section 33 of the 1940 Act, the 1937 Act contains no provision for an independent challenge to an award prior to enforcement proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that objections under Section 7 of the 1937 Act can only be raised defensively once enforcement proceedings are initiated under Section 5. The petition was dismissed as premature.
Questions settled- Does the Arbitration Act 1940 apply to the challenge or enforcement of a foreign award governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
- Can a party file an independent petition for a declaration that a foreign award is unenforceable before any enforcement proceedings have been initiated under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
- At what stage can a party raise objections to the validity or enforceability of a foreign award under Section 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
- MAQSOOD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD RABBANI vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 926 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-06-04Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMED and another vs MUNNA Y MIAN1987 CLC 171 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD SHAIKH vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Through Establishment Secretary, Government Of Pakistan, Rawalpindi1987 SCMR 1562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of an appeal regarding the compulsory retirement of a Grade 20 officer. The central legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, conducted under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, were vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically the failure to provide the accused with a copy of the inquiry report and the reliance on charges for which the accused had been exonerated. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the compulsory retirement order. The Court held that the rules implicitly require that an accused official be furnished with a copy of the inquiry report to offer an effective explanation before the Authority imposes a major penalty. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Authority cannot rely on charges for which the accused was exonerated without providing a fresh opportunity to show cause. Furthermore, the principles of natural justice must be read into statutory provisions, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against a civil servant.
Questions settled- Is an accused civil servant entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report before the Authority imposes a major penalty?
- Can an Authority rely on charges for which an accused officer was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer without providing a fresh opportunity to show cause?
- Does the rule of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing before an Authority passes an adverse order under Rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- MAQSOOD AHMAD And 10 Others vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1987 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by employees of the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) challenging the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978, which prescribed minimum educational qualifications and experience for promotion to the posts of Assistant Directors (Accounts). The petitioners argued that the Regulations were ultra vires the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, and inconsistent with older service rules saved under the Act, and that the power to frame regulations could not be delegated to the Chairman. The Supreme Court held that the older rules did not provide for the posts in question, and that section 48(3) of the Lahore Development Authority Act only saved rules framed by the Trust itself, not those framed by the Provincial Government under the repealed Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Court further held that the delegation of powers was valid under the Act and that the challenge suffered from laches. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Lahore Development Authority is competent to frame regulations prescribing educational qualifications and experience for posts not covered by older service rules?
- Whether rules framed by the Provincial Government under the repealed Town Improvement Act, 1922, are saved under section 48(3) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975?
- Can the power of the Lahore Development Authority to frame regulations be delegated to the Chairman?
- Whether a challenge to service regulations is barred by laches when there is no adequate explanation for the delay?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs AMIRUDDIN And Another1987 SCMR 1871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the accused, Amiruddin, for the murder of Muhammad Akram under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life and enhancing the fine. The accused sought leave to challenge his conviction, while a relative of the deceased sought the restoration of the death sentence. The core legal questions were whether the delay in filing the petitions should be condoned and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the ocular testimony were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that both petitions were barred by time, and the explanations provided for the delay were unsatisfactory. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent assessment of the eye-witnesses who observed the accused stabbing the deceased. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the principles regarding the limitation period for appeals and the weight accorded to concurrent findings of fact based on credible ocular testimony.
Questions settled- Are petitions for leave to appeal maintainable when they are barred by time and the explanations for delay are unsatisfactory?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses who observed the stabbing?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD PATWARI And 5 Other vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1987 PLC (C.S.) 761 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves four consolidated criminal appeals where the appellants, convicted of murder and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought reduction of their sentences to life imprisonment. The sole ground raised was that their prolonged detention in death cells due to delays in the disposal of their appeals had given them an "expectancy of life," which should serve as a mitigating circumstance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed its historical jurisprudence on the doctrine of expectancy of life. The Court held that due to the changed circumstances, including the chronic backlog of cases and inevitable delays in the administration of criminal justice, the doctrine of expectancy of life no longer holds the field. Delay in the disposal of an appeal does not per se constitute a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence, particularly where the crime is cruel or gruesome. The Court ruled that any commutation on the ground of delay is a matter for the executive authorities under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and consequently dismissed the appeals.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged detention in a death cell due to delay in the disposal of an appeal constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the doctrine of expectancy of life apply automatically to commute a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the commutation of a death sentence on the sole ground of delay in execution a matter for the judiciary or the executive authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners were convicted of murder and murderous assault by the trial court, receiving sentences including death and imprisonment for life, which were subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, primarily praying for a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life on the sole ground that the petitioner had suffered the agony of the death cell for about eight years. The caveator argued against treating institutional delays and delays caused by the convict's own successive appeals as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence, contending that the rights of the heirs to obtain justice should not be affected. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions regarding whether prolonged delay in the execution of the death sentence due to court backlogs and successive appeals constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged agony of the death cell resulting from the pendency of appeals constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Does delay caused by filing successive appeals and court backlogs affect the right of heirs to obtain an appropriate sentence?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1710 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD And 5 Other vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And 4 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 827 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 669 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. LJ 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1987 PLC (C.S.) 407 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 766 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-06-18Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR ELAHI vs TAHIR MASOOD1987 CLC 297 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR and others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR And Others vs SARDAR KHAN1987 SCMR 809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption, but the plaint initially lacked the correct court-fee. The trial court granted permission to make up the deficiency, and the plaintiff complied within the court-fixed timeframe, although this date fell after the statutory limitation period for filing the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge set aside the decree on appeal, ruling that the deficiency in court-fee was not rectified within the limitation period. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' second appeal in limine. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the petitioners' contention that the lower courts' findings conflicted with the rule established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289). The core legal question is whether a court-permitted extension for making up a court-fee deficiency in a pre-emption suit can extend beyond the limitation period without invalidating the suit. The Supreme Court found the contention regarding the conflict with established precedent worthy of consideration.
Questions settled- Can a court allow a plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period for a pre-emption suit?
- Does the rectification of a court-fee deficiency within a court-fixed timeframe validate a plaint even if the timeframe exceeds the original limitation period?
- MANZOOR And Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR alias JHOONA and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1998 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 404 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED TIRMIZI, vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE And 15 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 183 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs Syed ZAHIID BOKHARI and another1987 P Cr. L J 234 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1987 CLC 2237 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs ASWAR ALI SHAH And 2 Others1987 PLC (C. S.) 904 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB KARIM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1536 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- MANU vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR-UL-HASSAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1987 PLC (C.S.) 896 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr.L J811 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- MANSHA vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and a sentence of death, which was subsequently converted to imprisonment for life by this Court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of ocular testimony, corroborative medical evidence, weapon recovery, and motive, or whether the appellant acted in the right of self-defence during a dispute over a turn of irrigation water. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence and firearms expert reports, firmly established the prosecution's version of events and disproved the plea of self-defence. The key principle laid down is that where an accused sustains injuries during an initial altercation but thereafter returns armed with lethal weapons to commit murder in retaliation, the plea of self-defence is untenable, though mitigating circumstances arising from the initial fight may justify commuting a sentence of death to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of self-defence is available to an accused who returns to the scene of occurrence armed with a firearm after an initial altercation?
- Does the presence of injuries on the person of the accused necessarily establish the right of private defence in a double murder case?
- Can the capital sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life when the incident stems from a sudden quarrel and the accused sustained injuries during the transaction?
- Whether minor discrepancies in the estimation of firing distance by eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard their otherwise consistent testimony?
- MANSAB DAR vs Messrs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1987 PLC 171 · Labour Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- MANNO O INDUSTRIES LTD. vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT1987 SCMR 1910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld departmental orders requiring the petitioner company to reimburse excise duty rebates and pay penalties. The core legal question concerns whether interference is warranted with a concurrent finding of fact by departmental authorities regarding the count number of exported cotton yarn. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent finding of fact, established through laboratory tests showing the yarn counts were 19/1 rather than the claimed 21/1, calls for no interference by the constitutional courts. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact determined by competent departmental authorities will not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction absent any legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge a concurrent finding of fact by departmental authorities?
- Does a laboratory test report regarding yarn counts constitute a binding finding of fact?
- Can departmental authorities order the reimbursement of excise duty rebates upon proof of misdeclaration?
- MANIAR INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs MOBIN PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, KARACHI and another1987 CLC 135 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, DAWOOD YAMAHA Ltd., KARACHI-3 vs NAWAZISH ALI1987 PLC 869 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AWAN1987 MLD 3346 · Special Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION, WYETH LABORATORIES vs GULZAR AHMED CH.1987 PLC 674 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- MAMAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
- MALIR MUJAHID SPORTS vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and another1987 MLD 733 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- Malik YAQOOB ALI vs Sheikh SALAHUDDIN1987 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, concerning a dispute over the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller and the first appellate court both concurrently found that the relationship existed and ordered ejectment. However, the High Court re-appraised the evidence in second appeal and reversed these concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in disturbing concurrent findings of fact on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant in second appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction in a second appeal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on a mere re-appraisal of evidence, absent any procedural error, misreading, or omission of evidence. The key principle laid down is that a fallacy in appraising evidence, unless amounting to a material mistaken assumption or procedural illegality, is merely an error in finding of fact and does not justify interference in second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in disturbing concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts in a second appeal based on a re-appraisal of evidence?
- Does an erroneous finding of fact by lower courts constitute an error of law justifying interference in second appeal?
- Malik WAZIR MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 635 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- Malik RASHID AHMAD vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1987 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his appointment to the post of H.V.C.(R) Sialkot. Applications were initially invited for the vacancy, and the petitioner was appointed. Respondents challenged this before the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, who set aside the promotion holding the petitioner ineligible. The Service Tribunal upheld this view, finding that the petitioner lacked the requisite three years of experience as a Colony or Revenue Assistant under the applicable rules. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the West Pakistan Revenue Department Ministerial Service (District Cadre) Rules, 1964, as amended in 1972, required three years of experience in the Revenue Branch or Colony Branch generally, rather than specifically as a Colony or Revenue Assistant. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the rule requires experience strictly in the specified category or encompasses earlier experience as a Senior or Junior Clerk.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of three years' experience in the Revenue Branch or Colony Branch for promotion to Head Vernacular Clerk necessitates experience strictly in the same category or includes earlier experience as a Senior or Junior Clerk?
- Did the Punjab Service Tribunal correctly interpret the amendment to the West Pakistan Revenue Department Ministerial Service (District Cadre) Rules, 1964 regarding eligibility for promotion?
- Malik NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY and 2 others1987 CLC 2519 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- Malik MUKHTAR AHMAD and 4 others vs Ch. FAQIR AHMAD1987 CLC 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATEP L' D 1987 Supreme Court 500 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals: one by a convicted patwari challenging his conviction for bribery, and another by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence reduced by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone (20 days) for a corruption offense, based on grounds such as the passage of time, the agony of trial, and loss of service. The Supreme Court dismissed the accused's appeal, affirming the conviction under the relevant anti-corruption law, and allowed the State's appeal to enhance the sentence. The Court held that once guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, leniency based on the 'agony of trial' or the passage of time is inappropriate for corruption offenses. The key principle laid down is that courts must avoid awarding nominal punishments for corruption, as such leniency undermines public trust and fails to deter widespread corrupt practices, emphasizing that judicial concern for the accused must not outweigh the interests of society.
Questions settled- Is the 'agony of trial' or the passage of time a valid ground for reducing a sentence in a proven corruption case?
- Does the prevalence of corruption in society justify leniency in sentencing public officials convicted of bribery?
- Should courts award nominal punishments to public officials once their guilt for corruption is established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 247 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three consolidated appeals against the conviction of a bank officer under Section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for falsifying bank ledgers and creating fictitious entries, which facilitated unauthorized withdrawals and caused financial loss to the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution was mandatorily required to produce a handwriting expert to prove the falsification, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea of 'intent to defraud' without direct testimony on the accused's subjective intent. The Court held that the conviction was sound, ruling that the prosecution is not legally obligated to examine a handwriting expert if other reliable evidence, such as testimony from colleagues familiar with the accused's handwriting and initials, is available. Furthermore, the Court held that 'intent to defraud' and 'mens rea' can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the actual financial loss caused by the accused's actions. The judgment reaffirms that when evidence in examination-in-chief remains unchallenged during cross-examination, it is deemed accepted.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for the prosecution to produce a handwriting expert to prove disputed signatures or handwriting in a criminal trial?
- Can the 'intent to defraud' required for a conviction under Section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the circumstances of the case?
- What is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on specific facts deposed during their examination-in-chief?
- Does the definition of 'fraudulently' under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof of actual deprivation of property?
- Malik MUHAMMAD HASAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, QUETTA1987 CLC 182 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged orders restraining him from excavating a well, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal constituted under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 lacked the legal authority to grant interim injunctions. The core legal question was whether a tribunal created under this special statute possesses the inherent or implied power to grant temporary injunctions despite the absence of an explicit provision in the Ordinance. The Court held that while the Deputy Commissioner, acting as a referring authority, lacks the power to issue an injunction, the Tribunal constituted under the Ordinance possesses such power. The Court reasoned that the terms 'dispute', 'matter', and 'issue' used in the Ordinance are interchangeable and that the term 'matter' is broad enough to encompass ancillary and incidental proceedings, including interim relief. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the power to grant interim relief is an ancillary and incidental power inherent in the judicial function, even where not expressly conferred by statute, provided the tribunal is exercising adjudicatory functions.
Questions settled- Does a Deputy Commissioner acting under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 have the power to issue an interim injunction?
- Does a Tribunal constituted under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 have the jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions?
- Is the power to grant interim relief considered an ancillary power inherent in a tribunal's adjudicatory function even if not explicitly conferred by statute?
- MALIK MUHAMMAD HANIF vs E-In-C, G.H.Q., RAWALPINDI And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 770 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT1987 CLC 810 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ARIF vs THE NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 SCMR 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed an ex parte decree passed by a Special Judge, Banking Court, against the petitioner for the recovery of loan amounts. The petitioner, a former employee of the National Bank of Pakistan, contended that he was abroad when the suit was filed, that he was not properly served with summons, and that the suit was time-barred. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte decree given his failure to file an application for leave to appear and defend the suit within the prescribed time. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner’s counsel had appeared on his behalf earlier without raising the issue of non-service or absence from the country. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to seek condonation of delay before the trial court despite having returned to the country prior to the filing of his application. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish valid justification for the delay, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a defendant challenge an ex parte decree on the grounds of non-service if their counsel previously appeared in court without raising such an objection?
- Is a party entitled to the setting aside of an ex parte decree if they failed to seek condonation of delay for filing an application for leave to appear and defend?
- Malik MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB And Another1987 PLC (S. C.) 612 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-28Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 875 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- Malik MIAN MUHAMMAD and anothers vs ATTA MUHAMMAD and another1987 CLC 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
- Malik KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD And 24 Others vs MARDUMAN BABAR KAHOL1987 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court which allowed a civil revision application, setting aside ex parte decrees passed by the Qazi, Lower Zhob and the Majlis-e-Shoora, Quetta, and remanded the suit for fresh, expeditious disposal. The suit pertained to land and grazing rights among members of different Kahols (clans). The High Court held that the Qazi passed an ex parte decree without issuing or serving summons on several contesting defendants, and did so on a date fixed merely for submitting lists of witnesses rather than a date of hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, affirming that an ex parte decree passed in violation of mandatory procedural requirements and principles of natural justice without proper service is a nullity. Consequently, no period of limitation runs against such a null decree. Finding no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioners, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does limitation run against a decree passed in violation of mandatory procedural laws and natural justice?
- Can a Qazi or trial court pass an ex parte decree on a date fixed only for submitting witness lists without serving proper summons?
- Is directing present defendants to informally notify absent co-defendants a valid substitute for statutory service of summons?
- Malik JAVID ALI And Another vs ABDUL KADIR And Another1987 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal examines the correctness of concurrent convictions for bigamy under Section 494 and Section 494/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a second marriage contracted by the female appellant during the subsistence of her first marriage. The core legal questions involved the legal effect of a divorce deed executed without giving notice to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, and whether a co-accused could be convicted for abetment of bigamy without proof of knowledge regarding the non-effectiveness of the divorce. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that failure to give notice of talaq under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 renders the divorce ineffective and implies revocation, meaning the prior marriage subsists. The Court affirmed that Section 8 extends these requirements to other forms of dissolution. However, the Court laid down the principle that to sustain a conviction for abetment of bigamy against a second husband, there must be clear and convincing evidence of his requisite knowledge regarding the subsistence of the first marriage, extending the benefit of the doubt where such knowledge is absent.
Questions settled- Does a divorce pronounced by a husband become effective without giving notice to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Can a husband take advantage of his own omission to give notice of divorce under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 to claim that the divorce was rendered ineffective?
- Whether the provisions of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 apply mutatis mutandis to dissolutions of marriage otherwise than by talaq pursuant to Section 8 of the Ordinance?
- Is clear and convincing evidence of the accused's knowledge regarding the subsistence of a prior marriage necessary to sustain a conviction for abetment of bigamy?
- Malik JAHANGIR M. JOYA vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition for post-arrest bail filed on behalf of an accused belonging to the Qadiani faith, who was charged under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code for allegedly displaying badges bearing the 'Kalima Tayyaba'. During the course of hearing, a question arose regarding the applicability of Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, involving arguments on religious texts and whether the use of the Kalima by Qadianis constitutes defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to withdraw the bail petition, containing intemperate language and insinuations against the Court regarding a roving inquiry. The Lahore High Court addressed the propriety of the withdrawal application and the allegations of contempt. The Court held that while the language used in the withdrawal application amounted to contempt, it declined to initiate contempt proceedings, choosing instead to exercise benevolence towards the minority community counsel. The Court ultimately dismissed the bail application as withdrawn.
Questions settled- Can a bail application be dismissed as withdrawn when the petitioner seeks to withdraw it amidst arguments on merits?
- Does the display of 'Kalima Tayyaba' by Qadianis attract the provisions of Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in addition to Section 298-C?
- How should the court address intemperate language and insinuations contained in a withdrawal application filed by counsel for an accused?
- Malik ISHTIAQ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And 4 Other1987 SCMR 1902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-3-1980, which modified the trial court's judgment convicting and sentencing various respondents for murder and causing injuries following a street altercation. The trial court had awarded life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to two accused and lesser sentences to others. On appeal, the High Court acquitted three respondents and partially accepted the appeal of Muhammad Iqbal, converting his conviction under Section 302 to Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to six years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court involved evaluating the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, the credibility of an injured eyewitness, the adequacy of motive, and the significance of injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the nature of the offence against Muhammad Iqbal and to reappraise the evidence against Muhammad Tufail, while dismissing the petition as to the remaining respondents.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
- What is the legal effect of minor injuries sustained by an accused person during the same incident resulting in a homicide?
- Malik GHULAM SARWAR vs "' ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN And1987 PLD Lahore 669 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM NABI And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA And Other1987 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing property dispute over a house in Quetta, originally allocated to the petitioner through an earmarking scheme in 1959. The petitioner’s entitlement was challenged by the respondents, who were long-term occupants and claimed the property as displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir, asserting they had filed the necessary transfer forms. Following extensive litigation and multiple remands, the High Court ultimately upheld the transfer of the house to the respondents. The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed the High Court’s decision. The Court held that because the respondents had filed a valid transfer form (NCH form) on 15-7-1959, the property was legally excluded from the earmarking scheme and was not available for transfer to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, having no prior interest in the property and relying solely on the earmarking scheme, could not displace the respondents who had established their entitlement through the proper filing of transfer applications. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, maintaining the respondent's status as the rightful transferee.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a valid transfer form by an occupant exclude a property from being disposed of through an earmarking scheme?
- Can a petitioner claiming property solely through an earmarking scheme succeed if the property was not legally available for such allocation?
- Is a long-term occupant who has filed a transfer application entitled to the property over a subsequent allottee under an earmarking scheme?
- Malik GHULAM NABI And Others vs DUR MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1756(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the form of a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the petition, which was filed with a significant delay of 258 days, could be entertained or if it should be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. Upon reviewing the circumstances presented, the Court determined that the petitioners failed to provide any valid or sufficient justification to warrant the condonation of such a substantial delay. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was time-barred and could not be proceeded with. The ratio of the decision reinforces the strict principle that the law of limitation is to be applied rigorously, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay, the Court will not exercise its discretion to condone it. As a result, the petition was dismissed as barred by time, affirming the necessity for timely filing in legal proceedings to ensure judicial finality and adherence to procedural mandates.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained if it is filed with a delay of 258 days without valid justification?
- Is the court required to condone delay in filing a petition when no valid grounds are established?
- MALIK AVIAN vs Khawaja ABDUL AZIZ through his Legal Heir1987 CLC 425 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- Malik ASADULLAH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others1987 MLD 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-30Read full judgment →