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.
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD And Others vs Sardar HABIBULLAH And Other1987 SCMR 1752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The nature of the proceedings involved a dispute between the parties, Khair Muhammad and others against Sardar Habibullah and others. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners, acting on instructions, informed the Court that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement regarding the underlying dispute. Consequently, the petitioners expressed that they were no longer interested in pursuing the petition further. The Court, acknowledging the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the settlement and the subsequent lack of interest in prosecuting the matter, proceeded to dismiss the petition. The holding of the Court was a dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution, effectively terminating the proceedings before the Supreme Court based on the parties' private resolution of their conflict. The principle affirmed is that where parties settle their dispute privately and the petitioner indicates a lack of interest in proceeding, the Court will dismiss the petition for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution if the parties have settled the dispute outside of court?
- Does a statement by counsel regarding an out-of-court settlement constitute sufficient grounds for the dismissal of a petition?
- KHAIR DIN Through His Legal Heirs vs Haji MUHAMMAD DIN And Other1987 SCMR 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the right of pre-emption regarding a sale of land. The appellant, having previously filed a pre-emption suit, entered into a compromise with the vendees to withdraw that suit in exchange for the purchase of a portion of the disputed land. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit to pre-empt this new sale. The core legal question was whether a private compromise involving the sale of only a part of the original property, in consideration for withdrawing a pre-emption suit, qualifies as a sale in recognition of a superior right of pre-emption, thereby immune from further pre-emption claims. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption is fundamentally a right of substitution, requiring the pre-emptor to step into the shoes of the vendee regarding the entire transaction. Since the compromise involved a partial sale and price reduction, it failed to maintain the integrity of the original transaction. Consequently, the court ruled that the transaction was a fresh sale subject to pre-emption, dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a sale of a portion of land in exchange for withdrawing a pre-emption suit constitute a sale in recognition of a superior right of pre-emption?
- Is the right of pre-emption essentially a right of substitution that requires the pre-emptor to step into the shoes of the vendee for the entire transaction?
- Can a private compromise that reduces the area and price of the original sale be immune from further pre-emption claims?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Home Ministry1987 PLC (C.S.) 714 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH1987 MLD 2274 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The trial court sentenced both petitioners to death, which the High Court modified by confirming the death sentence of one petitioner while commuting the other's sentence to life imprisonment. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the convictions on the grounds of interested ocular evidence, conflict with medical evidence, and the fact that a key prosecution witness had previously filed an affidavit disowning his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the complainant, despite being the brother of the deceased, was reliable as no personal grudge was shown. Furthermore, the court ruled that the key witness's trial testimony remained credible, and the affidavit disowning his previous statements was likely coerced and not voluntary. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a close relative of the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of relationship in the absence of personal grudge?
- Can a witness's trial testimony be discredited merely because they previously executed an affidavit disowning their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of an affidavit disowning previous statements when there are indications that it was not executed voluntarily?
- Kh.TARIQ MOHYUDDIN vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB through its Vice-1987 MLD 382 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- Kh. NASEER-UD-DIN MAHMOOD and 4 others vs THE STATE and 3 others1987 MLD 1084 · Board of Revenue · 1985-08-25Read full judgment →
- Kh. IMRAN AHMAD vs NOOR AHMAD and another1987 CLC 561 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- KAZIM vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL Through 9 L.Rs.1987 PLD Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- Kazi Qaimuddin vs Qamarul Islam Abbas For Respondent1987 PLC 371 · Labour Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
- Kazi GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2004 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- KAUSER PERVEEN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 691(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
- KASIM TAR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHERBANO And Another1987 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the original landlady against her tenant on grounds of default and unauthorized construction. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the landlady sold the premises via a registered sale-deed. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist. The first appellate court maintained this dismissal, but the High Court allowed the second appeal, impleaded the vendee as a party, and remanded the matter. The core legal questions involved whether devolution of ownership during pending ejectment proceedings terminates the tenancy relationship and whether an appellate court can implead a successor-in-interest under Order XXII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of ownership does not render the ejectment application infructuous, and that an appellate court possesses the competence to implead a person upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of ownership rights by a landlord during the pendency of an ejectment application renders the application infructuous?
- Can an appellate court implead a successor-in-interest under Order XXII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the devolution of interest during pending proceedings terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant for the purposes of continuing an ejectment application?
- KARTAR MASI H vs THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, OKARA1987 PLD Lahore 596 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
- KART AR MA SIH vs THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, OKARA1987 PLD Lahore 596 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT ULLAH vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN1987 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman1987 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the removal of the appellant, a former WAPDA employee, under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously upheld the removal, ruling that the Authority possessed absolute power to remove employees without assigning reasons. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted the scope of Section 17(1-A) and whether an order passed under this provision is immune from judicial review regarding allegations of arbitrariness, mala fides, and discriminatory treatment. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in assuming it lacked jurisdiction to examine the basis of the removal order. The Court emphasized that such orders are reviewable, particularly when allegations of discriminatory treatment arise compared to similarly situated employees who were reinstated. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the Tribunal to consider whether the appellant’s removal was based on the same material as other reinstated employees and to address the grievance regarding the non-payment of mandatory notice pay.
Questions settled- Is an order of removal passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 immune from judicial review by the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to examine whether an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 is arbitrary or mala fide?
- Can an order of removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 be challenged on the grounds of discriminatory treatment when similarly situated employees were reinstated?
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses whether the High Court was justified in refusing to treat incompetent second appeals as revision petitions and disposing of them accordingly, following amendments to section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 and principles settled in Ilahi Bakhsh's case regarding jurisdictional valuation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view—that revision is merely a privilege rather than a right and that applications for conversion should be rejected outright to discourage small-valuation litigation—was incorrect. The Court ruled that while revisional jurisdiction and the conversion of proceedings are discretionary, the right to invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when conditions are satisfied is a valuable legal right, not a mere privilege. The Supreme Court laid down that courts should lean in favour of adjudication rather than stifling proceedings on technicalities, and where appeals are filed within limitation during a period of legal controversy regarding valuation, the High Court ought to consider exercising its judicial discretion to treat them as revision petitions and examine the merits under section 115.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to treat an incompetent second appeal as a revision petition solely on the ground that revision is a privilege and not a right?
- How is the forum of appeal determined under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 read with section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the power to convert an incompetent second appeal into a revision petition form part of the judicial discretion of the High Court?
- Is the right to apply for revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a privilege or a substantive legal right?
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal brought by convicts against their convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where one person died and three were injured after a dispute over lopped tree branches. The central legal issue was whether the case fell under premeditated murder or whether it constituted a sudden fight and chance encounter falling within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court observed that the prior altercation was trivial and insufficient to motivate a premeditated family attack, the timings and movements of the victims could not have been anticipated for advance planning, and injuries sustained by the accused were not satisfactorily accounted for by the prosecution. Consequently, the Court held that culpable homicide amounting to murder was not established. It altered the convictions from Sections 302/34 and 307/34 to Section 304 Part-I and Section 308 (three counts) PPC, reducing the sentences to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302 PPC be converted to Section 304 Part-I PPC where the incident arises out of a chance encounter and a trivial dispute lacking premeditation?
- How does the prosecution's failure to adequately explain injuries sustained by the accused affect the determination of premeditated murder?
- Whether the impossibility of anticipating the victim's presence at the scene negates the allegation of a planned and pre-arranged murderous assault under Section 302/34 PPC?
- KARAM DIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3145 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN And Another vs LAL KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed against a High Court judgment concerning a criminal assault resulting in a murder and injuries to several persons. The trial court convicted ten accused persons under sections 302/149, 307/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of one accused under section 302, while altering the convictions of the remaining nine accused to sections 326/149 and 324/149, reducing their sentences accordingly. The core legal question is whether the High Court misconstrued the scope of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code by failing to hold all members of the armed unlawful assembly constructively liable for murder and murderous assault, given that formidable weapons like guns and hatchets were openly carried and used during the incident. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the proper application of section 149, holding that members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons are deemed to know that death is a likely outcome in prosecution of their common object. The key principle established relates to the scope of constructive liability for offences committed in prosecution of the common object of an armed unlawful assembly.
Questions settled- Whether members of an armed unlawful assembly can be held vicariously liable under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an offence like murder committed during the occurrence?
- Does the carrying of formidable weapons by members of an unlawful assembly establish their knowledge that death was likely to be caused in the prosecution of their common object?
- Whether the High Court erred in altering the conviction of the co-accused from section 302/149 to section 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- KARAM DIN and 3 others vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and another1987 MLD 3314 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-12Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN and 2 others vs ALLAH DITTA and another1987 CLC 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- KARAM ALI And 6 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 175 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
- Karachil TARIQ JAFFER vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others1987 CLC 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- KARACHI TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION vs KARACHI TRANSPORT1987 PLC 4 56 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
- KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION vs Miss AISHA1987 CLC 718 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and another vs JANNAT ALI NOTTA1987 CLC 2190 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KARACHI INDUSTRIAL AND TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. And Another vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES), LAHORE And Another1987 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of an industrial concern. The appellants sought the transfer of property in their possession, contending it was distinct from the Patel Engineering Works auctioned to the respondent. The core legal questions addressed whether the property was correctly classified as an industrial concern, whether the auction was valid, and whether the appellants were entitled to relief despite their conduct. The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit. It affirmed that the definition of an industrial concern is inclusive, not exhaustive, allowing for the property's classification. The Court emphasized that the appellants failed to exercise diligence, were present at the auction without raising objections, and failed to properly pursue their alleged prior claims. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to equitable constitutional relief due to their lack of diligence and failure to follow proper legal procedures. The principle established is that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be extended to parties who fail to act with ordinary care and prudence in pursuing their legal remedies.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'industrial concern' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 allow for an inclusive interpretation?
- Are settlement authorities obligated to investigate factual grounds for transfer not explicitly pleaded by an applicant?
- Does the presence of a claimant at a public auction without raising objections preclude them from later challenging the auction on grounds of property description?
- Can a party invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge a property transfer after failing to pursue administrative remedies with due diligence?
- KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD vs ZULEKHA BAI1987 PLC 624 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs WALI AHMED KHAN1987 MLD 489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY And Others vs Messrs SHAISTA1987 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the commercialisation of a residential plot situated in Clifton, Karachi. The respondent company had obtained a No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) for converting a residential plot into a commercial category after depositing substantial commercialisation charges. Subsequently, upon representations from local residents, the Martial Law Administrator suspended the commercialisation permission, leading the respondent to file a constitutional petition in the High Court, which ruled in its favour. The petitioners challenged this judgment on grounds including the constitutional immunity of Martial Law orders under the Constitution of Pakistan, the availability of alternative remedies, and alleged non-compliance with building control regulations. The Supreme Court considered the contentions, held that the questions raised were of public importance, and granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
Questions settled- Whether an order suspending the commercialisation of a plot passed by a Martial Law Administrator is immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether a constitutional petition against the suspension of a building N.O.C. is maintainable when alternative remedies allegedly exist?
- Whether the commercialisation of a residential plot without fulfilling procedural requirements like public notice is bad in law?
- Kanwar MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB AHMAD KHAN And Others vs AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the constitutional petition challenging an order of the Board of Revenue. The core legal controversy concerned whether two land sales evidenced by mutations attested in 1960 and 1962 violated Martial Law Regulation 64 on the grounds that the vendors were allegedly left with an area less than a subsistence holding. The Board of Revenue found that the vendors had sold their entire holding, rendering Martial Law Regulation 64 inapplicable, a finding of fact the High Court declined to disturb. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by the Board of Revenue. Furthermore, the Court noted that one of the petitioners lacked locus standi and that the vendors had not come with clean hands as they failed to offer a refund of the purchase money while attempting to reclaim the land. Leave to appeal was consequently refused, establishing that discretionary relief will be denied to litigants who fail to restore benefits received under transactions they seek to impugn.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding land sales and subsistence holdings under Martial Law Regulation 64?
- Does a petitioner who was not a party to the disputed land sales possess the locus standi to challenge mutation orders?
- Is leave to appeal to be granted when petitioners fail to offer a refund of the sale consideration while seeking to invalidate land transactions?
- KANWAR AKBAR ALI KHAN and 2 others vs DEPUTY1987 CLC 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- KANIZ FATIMA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2006 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-04Read full judgment →
- KAMALUDDIN vs SHAFI MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY and another1987 P Cr. L J 2274 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- KAMAL UD DIN And Others vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Another1987 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the effective date of implementation of a Service Tribunal's order. The petitioners sought relief from 17 May 1982, the date of the original Service Tribunal order, rather than 8 December 1982, the date the Supreme Court dismissed the leave to appeal against that order. The core legal question was whether the implementation of an order upheld by an appellate court should relate back to the date of the original tribunal's order or the date of the appellate dismissal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, noting that the specific point regarding the effective date was not raised during the previous hearing, thus providing no ground for review. However, the Court affirmed the legal principle that when an appellate court dismisses an appeal and does not interfere with the trial court's judgment, the original order of the trial court remains the operative order. Consequently, the Court clarified that the petitioners could approach the Government to seek implementation of the Service Tribunal's order effective from 17 May 1982.
Questions settled- Does an order of a trial court remain the operative order when an appeal against it is dismissed by an appellate court?
- Is a failure to raise a legal point during the initial hearing a valid ground for a review petition?
- From what date should an order be implemented when the appellate court upholds the original judgment of a tribunal?
- KAMAL DIN and others vs NAZIR AHMAD1987 CLC 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous application was moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an order dismissing a regular first appeal as withdrawn based on the statements of an appellant and his counsel. The core legal questions involved whether a counsel's authority to withdraw an appeal can be unilaterally revoked without the court's permission, whether a statement made by a counsel acting on a wakalatnama containing a compromise clause is binding, and whether an appellant present in court can later claim ignorance of a statement recorded in English. The court held that a counsel's authority cannot be revoked without the court's permission and that a wakalatnama conferring power to compromise includes the authority to withdraw an appeal. The key principle laid down is that statements made by a counsel within the scope of their wakalatnama are binding on the client in the absence of fraud, and a client's authority given to an advocate continues until formally revoked with court permission.
Questions settled- Can a counsel's authority to represent a party and withdraw an appeal be revoked without the permission of the court?
- Whether a statement made by a counsel acting under a wakalatnama containing a compromise clause is binding on the client?
- Does the engagement of a new counsel ipso facto revoke the authority of the previously engaged counsel?
- KAMAL DIN And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Other1987 SCMR 1264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and the alleged fabrication of evidence during the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found that the ocular testimony was unreliable due to the witnesses' deliberate concealment of their relationship with the deceased and contradictions with the medical report regarding the number and location of injuries. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation was tainted by the delayed recovery of weapons and the suspicious handling of forensic evidence, which cast doubt on the integrity of the prosecution's case. Additionally, the motive was deemed implausible as the accused were actively pursuing legal remedies in court. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that where ocular evidence is contradicted by medical findings and investigation is suspect, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature and location of injuries render the testimony unreliable?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the investigation involves the delayed recovery of weapons and suspicious handling of forensic evidence?
- Does the deliberate concealment of a relationship with the deceased by prosecution witnesses destroy their credibility?
- Is the existence of a pending legal remedy in court a factor that weakens the prosecution's theory of motive?
- KAMAL AHMED SIDDIQUI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 MLD 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- KALU vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others1987 MLD 750 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- KALSOOM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2630 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- KALA vs The STATE1987 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the murder of the deceased with a hatchet following a domestic dispute regarding an exchange marriage, and was sentenced to death along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. His conviction and death sentence were upheld by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the ocular testimony, police reports, and omissions in the first information report, as well as the injuries sustained by the accused which were supported by medical evidence. The Court held that the presence of the primary eyewitness was doubtful, material improvements and omissions existed in the prosecution evidence, and the accused had successfully established a plea of private self-defence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to the right of private self-defence when material omissions in the prosecution evidence render the eyewitness account doubtful and the accused sustains injuries during the incident?
- Does the failure of the complainant to mention crucial prosecution facts in the First Information Report affect the credibility of ocular witnesses?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish who was the initial aggressor?
- KALA And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning charges of culpable homicide, attempted murder, hurt, and rioting. The High Court had convicted the appellants under Section 304, Part I, and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, applying Section 34 rather than Section 149, while setting aside the conviction for rioting under Section 148. Leave to appeal was granted solely to examine the severity of the sentence, with the appellants contending that life imprisonment under Section 304, Part I, was excessively harsh given the absence of a conviction under Section 302. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' conduct, the lethal weapons employed, and the extreme cruelty demonstrated during the unprovoked attack fully justified the sentence imposed. The Court further noted that it would not examine whether the offence should have been categorized under Section 302, as the complainant party had not filed an appeal regarding the conviction. The judgment affirms that the nature of the act and the manner of commission are critical factors in maintaining sentences for culpable homicide.
Questions settled- Is a sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justified where the accused acted with extreme cruelty and lethal weapons?
- Can the Supreme Court re-examine whether an offence should have been charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the complainant party has not filed an appeal against the conviction under Section 304, Part I?
- Does the presence of insignificant injuries on the accused side compared to the complainant side negate a plea of self-defense?
- KABIRUDDIN A. LALANI vs ZAFAR ISHAQ ANSARI And Another1987 SCMR 2052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed a Rent Controller's order directing the tenant to deposit rent arrears. The landlord filed an ejectment application alleging rent default and unauthorized sub-letting. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. The tenant challenged this, arguing that they were not in default as they had been regularly depositing rent in a separate Rent Miscellaneous Case after the landlord refused to accept it. The core legal question is whether a tenant's failure to deposit rent specifically within the ejectment proceedings, while continuing to deposit rent in a separate court miscellaneous case, constitutes a default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, that warrants the striking off of the defense. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the failure to deposit rent in the specific ejectment case might be merely technical in nature, especially where rent was already being deposited in court, and stayed the ejectment proceedings pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent specifically in the ejectment case constitute a default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, if the tenant has been regularly depositing rent in a separate court miscellaneous case?
- Should a failure to deposit rent in the specific ejectment case be treated as a technical default not warranting the penalty of striking off the defense under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- KABIRUDDIN A. LALANI and another vs ZAFAR ISHAQ ANSARI1987 CLC 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This rent appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which struck off the appellant's defense for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal question was whether a tenant’s deposit of rent in a separate miscellaneous rent application, rather than in the specific ejectment case as directed by the Rent Controller, constitutes sufficient compliance with a tentative rent order. The High Court held that the appellant failed to comply with the specific directions of the Rent Controller. The court affirmed that the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defense because the tenant had not deposited the rent in the account of the ejectment application as ordered. The court rejected the appellant's plea of illiteracy and technical error, emphasizing that the tenant was represented by counsel. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with a Rent Controller’s order regarding the mode and place of rent deposit is mandatory, and failure to adhere to these specific directions constitutes default warranting the striking off of the defense.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in a separate miscellaneous application constitute compliance with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent in a specific ejectment case?
- Can a tenant's defense be struck off for failing to comply with a tentative rent order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a claim of illiteracy a valid defense for failing to comply with a court order when the party is represented by legal counsel?
- KABIRU DDIN vs Syed SIBTAIN AHMAD1987 CLC 604 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises out of concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing a civil suit filed by the applicant, who claimed to be a tenant of the disputed premises and sought to challenge execution proceedings stemming from an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether a separate civil suit is maintainable for a third party claiming title or possession against an execution order passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, and whether the Rent Controller is competent to resolve such disputes. The Sindh High Court held that a separate civil suit is barred, as Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applies and the Rent Controller possesses the authority to investigate and adjudicate upon all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of an eviction order. The court laid down the principle that the special framework of rent laws aims to prevent protracted multiple litigation, enabling executing authorities to determine bona fide claims of third parties resisting possession without necessitating a separate regular civil suit.
Questions settled- Whether a separate civil suit is maintainable for a third party challenging an execution order passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Does a Rent Controller have the authority to investigate and determine questions of title or possession raised by an objector during execution proceedings?
- Whether the principles of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the execution of orders passed by a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- KABEER And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
- K.M.ZAKI and another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Production and 3 others1987 MLD 587 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
- K.M.C. SANITARY AND GENERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION vs SIND LABOUR COURT1987 PLC 754 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
- K .S. TALATI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI and 2 others1987 MLD 912 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-27Read full judgment →
- MITHO And 10 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- JUNAID ZAFFAR vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its1987 PLC (C.S.) 564 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- JUMA GUL vs Messrs HABIB BANK LTD And 3 Others1987 PLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- JIRAN BIBI and others vs KHAIR DIN and others1987 MLD 2900 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
- JIAND vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for a shooting incident involving a matrimonial dispute. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence but altered the conviction to Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration in the presence of a motive, whether a recovery of a weapon made fourteen days after arrest violates Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court can alter a conviction to Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the trial court failed to record such a finding, and if such an omission constitutes a curable irregularity under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding these contentions regarding evidentiary reliability and procedural legality worthy of further consideration.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of interested witnesses require independent corroboration in cases involving a matrimonial dispute?
- Can a recovery of a weapon made fourteen days after arrest be considered reliable under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the failure of a trial court to record a finding under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- JIAND And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1746 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- JEHANZEB KHAN vs QUAID I AZAM UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD1987 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the dismissal of an Assistant Executive Engineer from service at Quaid-i-Azam University. The petitioner had been dismissed following an inquiry conducted by a retired High Court Judge regarding allegations of misconduct. The core legal question was whether an inquiry report could validly form the basis of disciplinary action if the Inquiry Officer was not an employee of the University, specifically interpreting Rule 6(2) of the Efficiency and Discipline Statute of 1982. The High Court held that the provision requiring the Inquiry Officer to be senior in rank was intended to ensure impartiality and prevent prejudice, rather than strictly mandating that the officer be a university employee. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the inquiry conducted by an impartial authority of unquestioned integrity satisfied the requirements of justice. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere, as the inquiry report provided a valid basis for departmental action despite the officer's non-employee status.
Questions settled- Can an inquiry report form the basis of disciplinary action if the Inquiry Officer is not an employee of the organization?
- Does the requirement that an Inquiry Officer be senior in rank mandate that the officer must be an employee of the institution?
- Is the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction justified when the inquiry was conducted by an impartial authority?
- JEHANGIR vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 964 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 871 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR Alias BADSHAH vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case. The petitioner, along with three others, was charged under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an armed attack on the complainant and his brothers. The prosecution alleged that the group arrived armed, fired shots resulting in one death and one injury, and that the petitioner personally assaulted a victim with the butt of his pistol. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of a pre-concerted attack. The Supreme Court held that because the accused acted in concert and the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were prima facie applicable, the attack was pre-planned and executed without immediate provocation. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the petition, affirming that bail is not appropriate where prima facie evidence of common intention and active participation in a violent crime exists.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a pre-concerted attack involving multiple armed individuals justify the denial of bail?
- Are the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prima facie attracted when an accused participates in a joint armed assault?
- JEEVAN JEE vs SHARIFUDDIN and 10 others1987 MLD 715 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- JAWED AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1993 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- JAWED AKHTAR vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD YUNUS1987 MLD 487 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- JAWAID HYDER KAZMI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1538 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- JAVID IQBAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER And Others1987 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1237 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1987 CLC 2175 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL AND Another vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG AND 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- JAVED alias JAIDA alias PERVAIZ alias . PAIJI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1916(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
- JAVED AKBAR vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another1987 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- JAVED AHMAD BUKHARI vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING COMPANY1987 PLC 150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
- JAVAID SAIGOL AND 7 Orher vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHOREPLD 1987 Supreme Court 276. · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals by members of the Saigol family (assessees under the Income-tax Act, 1922) against a judgment of the Lahore High Court answering income-tax reference questions in favor of the revenue. The core legal question was whether dividend income for the assessment year 1963-64, sought to be taxed via reopening of assessments under Section 34-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was protected and covered under declarations of excess income filed by the appellants pursuant to Martial Law Regulation No. 32. The Supreme Court held that the consolidated statements filed under Martial Law Regulation No. 32 covered the assessment years 1960-61 to 1968-69, and processing them for the latest five years for tax computation was merely an administrative mechanism rather than an exclusion of prior years. Consequently, the disputed dividend income was fully covered by the excess income declarations, depriving the income-tax authorities of jurisdiction to tax it under Section 34-A. The appeal was allowed, holding that disclosures under Martial Law Regulation No. 32 grant immunity from reopening prior completed assessments for incorrect returns.
Questions settled- Whether dividend income for an assessment year falling within the period of a consolidated statement is covered by declarations of excess income filed under Martial Law Regulation No. 32?
- Whether the processing of consolidated statements of excess income for the latest five assessment years under Central Board of Revenue circulars excludes earlier assessment years from the immunity granted by Martial Law Regulation No. 32?
- Does an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner have jurisdiction under Section 34-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to reopen assessments for income already protected by a valid excess income declaration under Martial Law Regulation No. 32?
- Javaid Saigol & 7 others vs The Commissioner of In-1987 PTD (Trib) 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals arising from income tax assessment proceedings concerning members of the Saigol family, who declared excess income under Martial Law Regulation No. 32. The core legal question is whether the disputed dividend income for the assessment year 1963-64 was covered and protected by the consolidated statements of excess income filed by the appellants under Martial Law Regulation No. 32, thereby barring the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner from reopening the assessment under section 34-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the consolidated statements filed covered the entire period from 1960-61 to 1968-69, and the processing of such statements for the latest five assessment years was merely for tax computation purposes and did not exclude earlier years from the immunity granted. Consequently, the Court ruled that the disputed dividend income was fully covered by the declarations, rendering the reopening of the assessment without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that declarations and consolidated statements of excess income under Martial Law Regulation No. 32 grant complete immunity from reassessment for the stated period, and administrative computation rules restricting processing to five years do not negate the substantive coverage of the full declaration period.
Questions settled- Whether dividend income declared under consolidated statements pursuant to Martial Law Regulation No. 32 is protected from subsequent reassessment?
- Whether the processing of consolidated statements of excess income for the latest five assessment years restricts the substantive coverage of the declaration to those years alone?
- Does an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner have jurisdiction under section 34-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 to reopen an assessment covered by statutory immunity granted under Martial Law Regulation No. 32?
- What is the scope of reference proceedings under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 regarding questions framed by the Commissioner of Income Tax?
- JAVAID RIZVI vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN Through Services And General Administration Department And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 234 · Balochistan Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- JAVAID KHAN vs Messrs DAWOOD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1987 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2302 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 304, 308, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a fatal traffic accident. The core legal question centered on whether the failure of the trial court to examine the accused on oath as mandated by section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the trial, a question previously settled by a reference to a larger Bench holding that calling upon the accused to give evidence on oath is a mandatory integral part of the trial. The court held that the omission by the trial court to record the accused's evidence on oath or ascertain if he declined rendered the trial incomplete and could not be cured under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for retrial from the stage where the illegality occurred.
Questions settled- Whether section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 casts a mandatory duty upon a criminal court to record the evidence on oath of the accused?
- Does the failure of a trial court to call upon the accused to give evidence on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the trial incomplete?
- Can the omission to examine the accused on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be cured under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does asking an accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if he wishes to file a statement on oath constitute due compliance with section 340(2)?
- JAN MUHAMMAD And Others vs TAJ MASIH1987 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption as owners in the revenue estate, against the sale of suit land to Taj Masih, the sitting tenant. Although the trial court initially decreed the suit, the appellate court reversed the decision, relying on paragraph 25(3)(4) of the Land Reforms Regulation. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' revision petition. The Supreme Court considered the legal question of whether a tenant purchasing suit land possesses the first right of pre-emption so as to successfully resist claims by other pre-emptors under pre-emption laws. Affirming the High Court's view and relying on precedent, the Supreme Court held that a tenant of land enjoys the primary right of pre-emption and, upon purchasing the land himself, can lawfully defeat the pre-emption claims of all other potential pre-emptors. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a sitting tenant who purchases suit land have the first right of pre-emption over other pre-emptors?
- Can a tenant who purchases land successfully resist a pre-emption suit filed by an owner in the revenue estate under section 15 of the Pre-emption Act?
- JAN MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 276 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-04Read full judgment →
- JAN AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of two individuals and the attempted murder of four others during a violent confrontation over a land dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the appellants, who claimed to be in possession of the disputed land, were entitled to the right of private defense, and whether the death sentences imposed by the lower courts were appropriate in the circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, finding that the prosecution's ocular testimony, supported by the injuries sustained by the witnesses, established the appellants' guilt. However, the Court held that while the appellants were not fully justified in their use of lethal force, the existence of a genuine, albeit disputed, possession claim mitigated the culpability regarding the sentencing. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences of the primary appellants to life imprisonment, establishing the principle that while a claim of possession does not absolve one of murder, it may serve as a mitigating factor in determining the severity of the sentence.
Questions settled- Does a claim of possession over disputed land justify the use of lethal force under the right of private defense?
- Can death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment based on the circumstances of a land dispute?
- Is the presence of injured witnesses sufficient to establish their presence at the scene of the crime?
- JAMSHED AHMAD KHAN AND 2 Other vs THE S. D. M._ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GARDEN SUB DIVISION KARACHI AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These statutory appeals under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, arose from judgments of Election Tribunals regarding the validity of ballot papers. The core legal question was whether Section 33(5)(b) of the Act and Rule 17 of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, which prescribe placing the mark within the space containing the candidate's name and symbol, are mandatory or directory, and whether votes marked in an adjacent blank compartment must be excluded under Section 38(4). The Supreme Court held that Section 33(5)(b) and Rule 17 are directory, requiring only substantial compliance. Furthermore, Section 38(4)(c) provides an exhaustive list of grounds for rejecting ballot papers, under which a vote is invalid only if it is not clear for whom the elector voted. Consequently, where the voter's intention to vote for a specific candidate is clear and unambiguous despite the mark being placed outside the candidate's exact compartment, the vote is valid. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Are the statutory provisions specifying the place for marking a ballot paper under Section 33(5)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 mandatory or directory?
- Does a ballot paper marked in a blank compartment opposite a candidate's name constitute a valid vote if the voter's intention is clear?
- Is the list of grounds for rejecting ballot papers under Section 38(4)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 exhaustive?
- JAMNA DAS and 2 others vs SECRETARY (RS & EP) NOTIFIED OFFICER and 41987 MLD 270 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
- JAMILUR RAHMAN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL CHISTY And Another1987 PLC 328 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- JAMILUR RAHMAN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL CHISTY And 2 Other , Decided OnK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 389 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMED KHAN Through His L. Rs. vs Syed JAFFER HUSSAIN And Another1987 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which had accepted a constitutional petition filed by the first respondent regarding the transfer of a disputed house in Kotri Town. The property was originally transferred to the appellant's predecessor-in-interest, Abdul Rasheed Khan, via a P.T.O. in 1959. Subsequently, the house was put to auction in 1964 and transferred to the first respondent. Following Abdul Rasheed Khan's death, his legal heir challenged the cancellation and auction through appellate and revisional forums. The Settlement Commissioner set aside the auction and transfer in favour of the first respondent, holding that the original transfer was never legally cancelled and no notices were served. The High Court, however, set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order on grounds of limitation and functus officio status after P.T.D. issuance. The Supreme Court held that the original transferee acquired a vested right and could not be deprived of the property without due notice and lawful cancellation, and that the property was not legally available for auction. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Settlement Commissioner's order restored.
Questions settled- Whether a property already transferred to an original transferee through a P.T.O. can be legally auctioned without first lawfully cancelling the prior transfer and serving notice?
- Whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) bars the settlement authorities from rectifying an illegal auction and fraudulent transfer made without notice to the rightful transferee?
- Whether the finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the non-service of notice and limitation should be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when supported by the record?
- JAMIL AHMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which confirmed the petitioner's conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner, a clerk at the Karachi Development Authority, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to record a mutation entry. The prosecution's case relied on a trap operation involving an Anti-Corruption Officer and a Magistrate, during which tainted money was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the conviction, specifically highlighting the complainant's testimony regarding his weak eyesight at the time of trial. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that the complainant had confirmed his eyesight was perfect at the time of the incident and that the recovery was corroborated by the Magistrate and the Anti-Corruption Inspector. Finding that the pleas raised related merely to the appreciation of evidence and had been correctly addressed by the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a complainant's testimony regarding weak eyesight at the time of trial invalidate evidence of a transaction that occurred when the complainant's eyesight was reportedly perfect?
- Can a conviction for illegal gratification be sustained where the recovery of tainted money is corroborated by a Magistrate and an Anti-Corruption Inspector?
- JAMIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs COSMIC COMPANY LTD.1987 MLD 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- JAMES MASIH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1601 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
- JAMES And 3 Others vs THE STATE and 7 others1987 P Cr. L J 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
- JAMAL vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 26 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
- JAMAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 148 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-20Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-11Read full judgment →
- JAMAL AHMAD vs ZAKARIA1987 MLD 295 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- JAMAL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1987 MLD 2112 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- JAMAITULLAH And Another vs STATE1987 SCMR 1505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of two brothers, Jamaitullah and Abdullah, for the murder of Abdul Hameed and the attempted murder of three others. The appellants, motivated by family honor regarding their sister's marriage to the complainant, attacked the complainant party near a railway crossing. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident constituted a sudden fight under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was applicable. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, rejecting the appellants' plea of self-defense and the High Court's finding of a sudden fight. The Court held that the evidence demonstrated pre-concerted action rather than a sudden flare-up, thereby negating the application of Exception IV. It affirmed that the appellants acted with a common intention to commit the assault. The Court emphasized that the presence of independent police witnesses and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims versus the appellants substantiated the prosecution's case, confirming the appellants' guilt.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a sudden fight preclude the application of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied when the evidence establishes pre-concerted action?
- Is the testimony of independent police witnesses who intervened during an occurrence sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused?