Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- GHULAM QADIR And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR And Others vs ALLAH YAR1987 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal due to abatement. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a decree involving an indivisible sale transaction abates in its entirety if the legal representatives of one of the deceased joint appellants are not impleaded within the prescribed period of limitation. The High Court had determined that the sale in favour of the two joint purchasers, Pathana and Sohna, was indivisible, rendering the decree obtained by the respondent pre-emptor also indivisible. Consequently, the High Court held that the failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record within time resulted in the total abatement of the appeal. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning. The principle laid down is that where a decree arises from an indivisible transaction, the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased party in an appeal results in the abatement of the entire appeal, as the decree cannot be set aside in part.
Questions settled- Does an appeal against a decree involving an indivisible sale transaction abate in its entirety if the legal representatives of one of the deceased joint appellants are not impleaded within the limitation period?
- Is a decree obtained in a pre-emption suit regarding an indivisible sale considered indivisible for the purposes of appeal abatement?
- GHULAM QADIR alias SHAUKAT vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 630 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others1987 MLD 1629 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs GHULAM QADIR Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI through his 8 Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN through his1987 CLC 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI SHAHANI And 4 Other vs SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 850 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI KAZI vs PORT MOHOMED BIN QASIM AUTHORITY And Another1987 PLC 451 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI and 5 others vs Mst. BARKAT BIBI and 10 others1987 CLC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI and 3 others. vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI And 3 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs VTH SIND LABOUR COURT And Another1987 PLC 601 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2467 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and another1987 CLC 99 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs S.H.O. and another1987 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ABDUL MAJID and another1987 PLD Karachi 681 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA QAZI Alias MUSTAFA ISMAIL QAZI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 966(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA Alias MOHSAN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2262 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs The STATE1987 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner Ghulam Murtaza sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal and confirming his death sentence for the rape and murder of a minor girl, Mst. Iqbal Bibi. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, specifically the 'last seen' testimony of a witness and an alleged extra-judicial confession. While both the trial court and the High Court disbelieved the extra-judicial confession, they relied solely on the 'last seen' evidence to convict the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for a capital offense can be sustained solely on uncorroborated 'last seen' evidence when other major supporting evidence has been rejected. The Supreme Court held that the case required consideration as to whether proper principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were followed, and consequently granted leave to appeal to examine the sufficiency of the 'last seen' evidence without corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated 'last seen' evidence?
- Does the rejection of an extra-judicial confession require additional independent corroboration for 'last seen' evidence to form the basis of a capital conviction?
- GHULAM MURTAZA SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1987 MLD 1143 · Sindh High Court · 1968-04-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA And Others vs THE SESSIONS JUDGE, LEIAH And Other1987 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against the concurrent orders of a Magistrate and a Sessions Judge under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The dispute involved agricultural land where the respondent claimed possession based on a previous civil decree, while the petitioners challenged the decree through an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. During the pendency of these civil proceedings, the respondent alleged forcible dispossession, prompting the Magistrate to initiate proceedings and order restoration of possession, a finding affirmed in revision by the Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the institution of civil proceedings or the pendency of a civil matter ousts the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to entertain and proceed with an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an interim injunctive order. The Supreme Court held that the mere institution of a civil action or pendency of proceedings does not oust a Magistrate's jurisdiction under section 145 unless a specific interim order regarding possession has been passed by the civil court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the mere institution of civil proceedings oust a Magistrate's jurisdiction to proceed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Magistrate entertain an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no interim order regarding possession has been passed by a civil court?
- Whether pending revision proceedings against a civil court decree operate as an automatic stay against criminal proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- GHULAM MURTAZA and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA ABRO vs SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT1987 PLC (C. S.) 216 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUJADDID And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2300 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
- IN RE: J & K STATE MUSLIM LEAGUE vs NOT1987 CLC 2023 · Chief Election Commissioner · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHANIMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3086 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs NABI BAKHSH and 9 others1987 CLC 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1987 CLC 2439 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR And Other1987 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellant's application to set aside an abatement order in a writ petition, following the death of a respondent. The appellant sought to implead the legal representatives of the deceased nearly five years after the abatement occurred. Leave to appeal was initially granted to determine whether the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, precluded the abatement and whether Article 177 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied to the proceedings. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel conceded that he could not press the legal points regarding the applicability of the Ordinance and the Limitation Act. The appellant instead argued that the application should have been allowed on merits, citing a precedent regarding the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that leave was not granted to examine the merits of the High Court's refusal to set aside the abatement. Consequently, the Court declined to modify the scope of the appeal and dismissed it, noting that the appellant could pursue alternative remedies regarding the subject matter of the original writ petition.
Questions settled- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, prevent the abatement of a writ petition upon the death of a respondent?
- Is Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to an application for setting aside the abatement of a writ petition?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. AMIRAN KHATOON And Another1987 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the nature of property rights acquired by a limited life-estate-holder widow under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The core legal question was whether a widow succeeding to an occupancy tenancy as a limited owner becomes an absolute owner upon converting the tenancy into proprietary rights by paying compensation, thereby excluding other legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the acquisition of proprietary rights under section 114 does not free the widow from the limiting conditions of her tenure, nor does it make her a fresh stock of descent to the exclusion of other heirs under Muslim Personal Law. The Court affirmed that such a widow cannot alienate the property beyond her limited capacity, and potential heirs retain the right to challenge invalid transfers. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a life-estate-holder widow under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 acquires full ownership upon converting occupancy rights into proprietary rights under section 114?
- Does the acquisition of proprietary rights by a widow under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 constitute her as a fresh stock of descent excluding other legal heirs?
- Do potential heirs have the locus standi to challenge invalid alienations made by a limited life-estate-holder widow?
- Can a widow holding a limited life estate under the un-amended section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 validly gift the entire acquired property to a third party?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MASSAN Alias WASSAN ZAILDAR And 6 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI PORT TRUST AUTHORITY1987 PLC (C.S.) 807 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI1987 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD SADRUDDEEN. and 4 others vs THE STATE and another1987 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD DOSSUL vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1987 CLC 1799 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD DAUDPOTA vs TAUSIF AHMAD1987 MLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (Land) and others1987 CLC 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G)/NOTIFIED OFFICER And Other1987 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a writ petition in limine. The original dispute involved the cancellation of the petitioners' predecessor's land allotment as bogus and fraudulent. A compromise agreement in a subsequent writ petition referred the matter to a Notified Officer to ascertain if the respondents had pending claims for land adjustment. The Notified Officer found that the respondents did have verified pending claims, leading to the restoration of their allotment. The petitioners challenged this finding, arguing that the respondents' claims were invalid, but the High Court held that these contentions were not raised before the Notified Officer and were beyond the scope of the consent order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the scope of inquiry on remand was limited by the compromise agreement. The Court also noted that the Settlement Department was not a party to the agreement and that granting relief to the petitioners would amount to perpetuating fraud, which the High Court could not do in its constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the scope of inquiry on remand, following a compromise agreement, limited to the specific terms agreed upon by the parties?
- Can a High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, grant relief that would perpetuate fraud?
- Do petitioners, whose original land allotment was cancelled as fraudulent, have locus standi to challenge the validity of other claimants' pending claims?
- Is a Settlement Department, not a party to a compromise agreement between private individuals, legally obligated to allow petitioners to benefit from their own fraud?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and another1987 CLC 2244 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had decreed the respondents' suit seeking declaration and cancellation of an exchange deed on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of implementation. The core legal issues centered on whether the exchange deed was voidable on account of fraud and misrepresentation under the Contract Act 1872, whether the exception to Section 19 applied, and whether a factual issue abandoned before the first appellate court could be reopened in second appeal.
The High Court held that although the appellants made untruthful representations regarding their absolute ownership, the recitals in the exchange deed itself put the respondents on notice concerning competing claims and previous wills. Consequently, the respondents possessed the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence, thereby attracting the first Exception to Section 19 of the Contract Act 1872 and precluding avoidance of the contract. The Court further determined that issues conceded or abandoned before the first appellate court could not be revived in second appeal. The appeal was accepted, restoring the District Judge's decree.
Questions settled- Can a contract be avoided for fraud or misrepresentation if the party seeking avoidance had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence under the Exception to Section 19 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Whether recitals in a registered deed mentioning prior conflicting wills and claims put an intending transferee on notice requiring reasonable inquiry?
- Can a party in second appeal agitate a finding on an issue that was expressly given up or abandoned during arguments before the first appellate court?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Alias GULLOO vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD alias GULLOO vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Alias GULLO vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment to four years and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was tried for making a murderous assault with a hatchet on the injured complainant, causing a grievous injury dangerous to life. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, corroboration by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the validity of the petitioner's plea of self-defence and alternative version of events. The Supreme Court found that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on trustworthy eyewitness accounts, prompt registration of the First Information Report, and complete medical corroboration which also satisfactorily explained the minor injuries on the petitioner's person. The petition was consequently dismissed, reaffirming the principle that consistent ocular testimony supported by medical evidence and prompt reporting is sufficient to sustain a conviction for a murderous assault.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding ocular testimony can be interfered with when supported by medical evidence?
- Does the prosecution satisfactorily explain injuries on the accused when medical and circumstantial evidence indicates they resulted from a fall during escape?
- Can a plea of self-defence be sustained without foundational support in the evidence and when contradicted by prompt eyewitness accounts?
- Whether prompt lodging of the First Information Report lends sufficient credibility to the testimonies of eye-witnesses in an assault case?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Alias GAMMI vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KIBRIYA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JEELANI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1583 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JAFAR and others vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others1987 MLD 134 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HYDER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HYDER vs S.M.SALEEM, GENERAL SECRETARY, NEW THERMAL POWER1987 PLC 952 · Labour Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3300 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs SIRAJ-UL-HAQ and others1987 PCr.LJ 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs RIAZ AHMED1987 CLC 1227 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs NAZIR AHMAD and others1987 CLC 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Messrs. EAST PAKISTAN ENTERPRISE KARACHI Ltd.1987 PLC 574 · Labour Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs KARIM BAKHSH And Others1987 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether bail should be cancelled given that a prior bail petition for the same respondents had been dismissed by another judge of the same court, a fact that was not disclosed to the court during the subsequent bail hearing. The court held that the bail granted to the respondents must be cancelled. The decision was based on the principle of judicial propriety and the rule that successive bail applications should ideally be heard by the same judge to avoid conflicting orders. The court emphasized that bail in non-bailable offences is a concession rather than a right. Consequently, the court cancelled the bail and directed that any future bail applications by the respondents be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate assignment, thereby ensuring procedural consistency and preventing the abuse of the court process through the concealment of prior adverse orders.
Questions settled- Does the concealment of a previously dismissed bail petition constitute grounds for the cancellation of bail subsequently granted?
- Is bail in a non-bailable offence a right or a concession?
- Should successive bail applications be heard by the same judge to avoid conflicting orders?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-09-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs FATEH MUHAMMAD And 9 Other1987 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over State land measuring 200 Kanals and 2 Marlas located in District Multan, originally allotted under the Well Sinking Scheme in 1942 to one Veer Singh, who never took possession of the land. The grant was subsequently cancelled by the Collector in 1946 before the partition of India because possession (Dakhal) was not delivered. Post-partition, the land was allotted as State land to the appellant's predecessor under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, while respondents later obtained an allotment of the same land from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner treating it as evacuee property. The Settlement Commissioner set aside the evacuee allotment, but a Single Judge of the High Court accepted the respondents' writ petition, holding that the Settlement Commissioner lacked authority to determine evacuee status. The core legal question is whether land for which a pre-partition grant was cancelled due to non-delivery of possession prior to independence could legally become evacuee property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the grantee never took possession and the grant was lawfully cancelled by the Collector prior to partition, the land remained State land and never became evacuee property. The key principle laid down is that under Section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, no person acquires tenancy rights or title in allotted land until written orders are passed and possession is taken with the Collector's permission, and unpossessed resumed land does not assume the character of evacuee property.
Questions settled- Whether land for which a pre-partition grant was cancelled due to non-delivery of possession prior to independence can legally become evacuee property?
- Does an allottee acquire any right or title in government land under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, without taking physical possession with the permission of the Collector?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs ABDUR RAHIM And Another1987 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs ABDUL KARIM And Others1987 P Cr. L J 271 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN MEMON vs Mst. FARKHANDA SAMAD and another1987 CLC 362 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN MALIK vs SAJIDA MAKHANI and another1987 MLD 120 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN CHANDIO vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd.1987 PLC 182 · Labour Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and others vs Syed SHAHIDA ALI and others1987 CLC 2412 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and 6 others vs ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL REVENUE1987 MLD 215 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HASSAN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conviction under Sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused who inflicted no physical injury, was empty-handed, and whose specific overt act of holding the deceased was omitted from the F.I.R. could be awarded capital punishment based predominantly on direct motive and shared presence. The Supreme Court observed that while motive serves as a satisfactory corroborative circumstance when reliable evidence exists, it cannot supply the total lack of direct or circumstantial evidence proving active participation in causing fatal injuries. Finding that the appellant did not inflict any injury upon the deceased and was unarmed, the Court held that the sentence of death was excessive. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment along with a fine to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of death be sustained against an unarmed accused who inflicted no injury on the deceased?
- Whether strong motive alone can substitute for the lack of direct or circumstantial evidence of active participation in a murder?
- Does an omission in the F.I.R. regarding a specific overt act attributed to an accused affect the quantum of sentence?
- GHULAM HASSAN vs RUSTAM ALI AND 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HASSAN vs RUSTAM ALI AND 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HASSAN And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2026 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HASAN and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAMEED and others vs Dr. GHULAM BHEEK and others1987 CLC 835 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs Messrs LATIF JUTE MILLS LTD. And Another1987 PLC 563 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER CHANNA R vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another1987 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his retirement from service as time-barred. The petitioner was retired from government service on 16 October 1976 upon completing 25 years of qualifying service. He failed to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation, instead pursuing remedies under Martial Law Order 23. Although a Review Board recommended relief, the competent authority rejected his petition in 1978. After pursuing other unsuccessful avenues, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal in 1984, which was dismissed due to the significant delay. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances and affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the appeal was clearly barred by time. The Court found no factual or legal error in the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to adhere to the statutory limitation period, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can an appeal before the Service Tribunal be entertained when filed several years after the impugned retirement order?
- Does the pursuit of remedies under Martial Law Order 23 toll the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- GHULAM HAIDER Alias IQBAL vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 2194 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA vs SHUKAR DIN1987 MLD 327 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR and 2 others1987 CLC 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 803 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1987 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 945 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM DASTGIR vs MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA JAVED And Other1987 SCMR 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that interfered with an appellate order under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, exceeded its authority by re-evaluating evidence and overturning the findings of the Appellate Authority, given that Section 15(7) of the Ordinance confers finality on the Appellate Authority's decisions. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's interference was justified on the grounds that the Appellate Authority had ignored material evidence or mischaracterized testimony as hearsay. The Court held that the High Court acted within its limited jurisdiction of judicial review because the Appellate Authority had failed to consider relevant evidence—specifically, the personal knowledge of witnesses regarding the landlord's business separation—and had ignored the landlord's uncontroverted testimony regarding personal need. The key principle laid down is that while the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction, it may intervene if the Appellate Authority has ignored material evidence on record or failed to follow the law as established by superior courts.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by an Appellate Authority under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the High Court have the authority to review evidence in a writ petition if the Appellate Authority has ignored material evidence on the record?
- Is the testimony of witnesses regarding a business dispute between brothers considered hearsay if the witnesses worked in adjacent premises and observed the events?
- Does the finality clause in Section 15(7) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, completely bar the High Court from exercising judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- GHULAM ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs PAKISTAN Through Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Lahore1987 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF And Other1987 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order granting bail to two respondents in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondents were complicit in the double murder and that the High Court judge lacked the competence to pass the order because his nomination to the bench for only one week violated Article 198(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which allegedly requires bench appointments to be for at least one year. The Supreme Court rejected the petition. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the High Court’s exercise of discretion was sound, noting the respondents were unarmed and did not exhort the principal accused to fire. Regarding the legal challenge, the Court held that Article 198(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empowers the Chief Justice to assign judges to benches as needed for efficient functioning, and that this provision operates independently of the requirements in Article 198(5). The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the appointment of a High Court judge to a bench for a period of less than one year violate Article 198(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Chief Justice assign a judge to a bench or circuit court under Article 198(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 independently of the requirements of Article 198(5)?
- Is the grant of bail to an unarmed co-accused who did not exhort the principal offender to commit the crime a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- GHULAM ALI vs HALEEMA and another1987 CLC 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI KHAN vs SULTAN MAHMOOD KHAN and others1987 P Cr. L J 825 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI and another vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND, HYDERABAD and 7 others1987 MLD 2778 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 1762 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKHTAR vs SARDAR and 5 others1987 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKHTAR vs SARDAR And 5 Other1987 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of cross-petitions arising from a murder trial where four accused persons were tried for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court convicted all four accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the main accused, Sher Mohammad, while acquitting the other three co-accused, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The complainant sought enhancement of Sher Mohammad's sentence to death and challenged the acquittal of the co-accused, whereas Sher Mohammad filed a jail petition challenging his conviction. The Supreme Court evaluated the medical evidence, ocular testimony, recovery evidence, and the unproven motives. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's appraisal of evidence—noting that only Sher Mohammad's shot hit the deceased while the co-accused missed or fired after the victim fell—the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal, holding that the impugned judgment warranted no interference.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's judgment maintaining conviction and acquittal when ocular and medical evidence support the findings?
- Does the mere presence of co-accused persons who did not inflict a fatal injury warrant setting aside their acquittal?
- Whether the failure to prove alleged motives necessitates the enhancement of a sentence of life imprisonment to death for murder?
- GHULAM ABBAS vs WAPDA1987 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant, a former Lineman Grade II with WAPDA, was dismissed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. After initially approaching the Labour Court, the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Service Tribunal, which was rejected as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction to interfere with WAPDA service orders, particularly in light of the ouster of jurisdiction clause contained in Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. Relying on the precedent established in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), the Supreme Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal on the basis of limitation and the established jurisdictional limitations regarding WAPDA employees.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to interfere with service orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Can an appeal be entertained by the Federal Service Tribunal if it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without reasonable explanation?
- GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2311(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →