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.
- ASHFAQ HUSSAIN vs Messrs AMIN INTERNATIONAL Ltd. and 2 others1987 MLD 520 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMED vs Mst. FAHMIDA BANO1987 MLD 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 2197(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR SHAH Alias AEHHAN SHAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 379 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI WASTI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Others1987 PLC (C . S.) 417 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 954 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 415 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs Messrs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION and another1987 CLC 855 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs BASHARAT And Other1987 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Asghar Ali against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7th October, 1980, which acquitted four respondents of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's acquittal of the respondents and whether grounds exist for the Supreme Court to interfere with an acquittal judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the reasons provided by the High Court for acquitting the respondents were correct, and consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as it was not a fit case for interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to interfere with a High Court's judgment of acquittal where the reasoning of the High Court is sound and unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment acquitting the accused when the reasons given for acquittal are found to be correct?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an acquittal under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the High Court's reasoning is sound?
- ASGHAR ALI CHISHTI And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 96 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-09Read full judgment →
- ASAD ZAHEERUDDIN and 3 othersPertitioners vs THE SUBREGISTRAR "T"1987 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the purchasers of a property challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register a conveyance deed presented for registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar had adjourned the registration, demanding a no-objection or clearance certificate regarding the payment of capital gains tax from the Excise and Taxation Officer pursuant to executive instructions issued following the concurrence of the Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C". The core legal question was whether a registering authority could refuse registration of a conveyance deed for non-production of a capital gains tax clearance certificate in the absence of a statutory requirement under the relevant statutes and rules, and whether such executive instructions were protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution. The court held that neither the Registration Act, 1908, the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, nor the West Pakistan Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 required such a certificate as a precondition for registration, and that executive instructions could not override statutory provisions or claim immunity under Article 270-A(2) of the Constitution. The petition was allowed, directing the registering authority to register the conveyance deed.
Questions settled- Can a registering authority refuse to register a conveyance deed on the ground that a capital gains tax clearance certificate has not been produced?
- Do executive instructions requiring the recovery of capital gains tax prior to registration override the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908?
- Are executive instructions issued pursuant to a summary approved by a Martial Law Administrator protected under Article 270-A(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD vs SHER MUHAMMAD and 17 others1987 CLC 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD KHAN vs NAWAB and another1987 CLC 955 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. and another vs ESSO1987 PLD Karachi 660 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
- ARIF Alias ACHHI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 849 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- ARIF ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
- Arafat Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle E-1, KarachiPTCL 1987 CL. 427 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- AQAL KHAN vs SHERZADA and 2 others1987 PCr.LJ 1154 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
- ANWAR RAFI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others1987 MLD 2787 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN And Others vs FATEH ALI And Other1987 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had sold a portion of disputed land to the petitioners through registered deeds, but later filed a suit seeking a declaration and annulment of the sale, claiming she had not executed the deeds. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate and revisional courts affirmed the finding. The core legal question concerned the effect of failing to produce the original sale deeds and the resulting evidentiary presumption. The Supreme Court held that the failure to produce the original deeds raised a strong presumption against the petitioners, and attempts to summon a witness could not cure this omission. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, establishing that the withholding of primary documentary evidence like original sale deeds justifies an adverse factual presumption against the party holding them.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary effect of failing to produce original sale deeds in a suit challenging the execution of a transaction?
- Whether the non-production of primary documentary evidence raises a presumption against the party withholding it?
- Can the failure to produce original deeds be compensated by summoning other witnesses to prove the transaction?
- ANWAR DILSHAD vs ABDUL WAHEED1987 SCMR 1661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal concerning the striking off of a tenant's defence for alleged default in rent deposits under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a tenant's defence could be struck off by a Rent Controller for the breach of terms of a stay order passed by a superior court under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rather than for contravention of the Rent Controller's own order. The Supreme Court held that upon the dismissal of an appeal, the stay order stands automatically vacated, leaving the Rent Controller's order in the field. Furthermore, a Rent Controller cannot penalise a tenant or strike off a defence for the violation of an interim appellate order passed under Order 41 Rule 5, as only the superior court whose order was breached could take notice of such violation. The key principle laid down is that the jurisdiction to strike off a defence for violating a stay order vests solely in the court that issued the stay, and the Rent Controller's order remains suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence for the breach of terms of a stay order passed by a superior court under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What is the effect of the dismissal of an appeal on an interim stay order previously granted by a superior court?
- Can a litigant be penalized for a delay in depositing rent when the last day of limitation falls on a holiday?
- ANWAR BAIG and another vs Mst. NAZIRAN BIBI and 8 others1987 CLC 1855 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- ANWAR And Another vs THE STATE1987 P Cr. L J 238 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1987 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI KHAN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 MLD 2594 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI CHAUDHRY vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA1987 MLD 2894 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI And Another vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 938 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- ANVIR AKHTAR and others vs Mst. MUQADDAS ASRI and others1987 CLC 640 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- ANJUMANEFALAHEABADKARAN vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 2 others1987 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- ANJUM ZIA vs S.H.O., MODEL TOWN, LAHORE and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
- ANJUM HAMEED and another vs Mrs. BILQUIS1987 MLD 687 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- ANEES LODHI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Andhra Re-rolling Works, Hyderabad. vs Union of India and others.PTCL 1987 FC. 355 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-05-09Read full judgment →
- ANAND RAM vs MOTI RAM and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 230 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- ANAND RAM vs MOTI RAM And 3 Other1987 PLD Quetta 230 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- AMMAN VILL vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
- AMJAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1773 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
- AMJAD SULTAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2948 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-04Read full judgment →
- AMJAD HUSSAIN vs Z AFAR IQBAL KHAN and others1987 CLC 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- AMJAD HUSSAIN ABID vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1546(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a teacher accused of committing sodomy on a student, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court rejecting his bail application. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the case was not a fit one for interference with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision denying bail.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in bail matters?
- Does an accused charged with sodomy have an absolute right to bail at the leave to appeal stage?
- AMIRUL AZEEM And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-28Read full judgment →
- AMIRA And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 473 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- AMIR SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1987 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- AMIR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1167 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
- AMIR MUHAMMAD vs NAIK MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a suit for ejectment of an undivided share in immovable property by one co-owner against another is competent, and whether a decree for physical dispossession can be passed in such circumstances. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession of 11 out of 16 shares in agricultural land and water against the appellant co-owner, which was decreed by the trial Qazi, affirmed by the Majlis-e-Shoora, and upheld in revision by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that while a suit for joint possession by a co-sharer against another co-sharer is fully competent, a decree for physical dispossession or eviction cannot be legally granted against a co-owner in respect of undivided joint property. However, instead of setting aside the proceedings, the Court modified the decree to one of joint possession in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of their 11 shares, holding that courts can mould relief to fit the circumstances of the case. The appeal was partly allowed with this modification.
Questions settled- Is a suit for ejectment in respect of an undivided share by one co-owner against another co-owner competent in law?
- Can a court grant a decree for physical dispossession or eviction against a co-sharer in joint property?
- How is a decree for joint possession of immovable property executed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an appellate court modify a decree for eviction to one of joint possession in respect of jointly held property?
- AMIR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Other1987 SCMR 1742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of a property transfer. The dispute concerns shops originally transferred to one Naik Muhammad, which were later auctioned and transferred to respondent No. 1 in 1974 after the original transferee could not be located. In 1982, the petitioner sought the transfer of these shops in his own right, leading the Member Board of Revenue to cancel the 1974 transfer. The High Court, however, set aside this cancellation, ruling that the transfer was a 'past and closed' transaction. The core legal question was whether the Member Board of Revenue possessed the jurisdiction to reopen and cancel a transfer finalized over 12 years prior, following the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that since no proceedings were pending at the time of the repeal, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the finalized transfer. The principle established is that once property transfer proceedings are finalized and closed, they cannot be reopened after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws.
Questions settled- Does the Member Board of Revenue have jurisdiction to cancel a property transfer after the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, if no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal?
- Can a property transfer finalized through a permanent transfer deed be considered a 'past and closed' transaction?
- Does the repeal of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws preclude the reopening of finalized property transfers?
- AMIR JAN AND 3 OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER, QUETTA1987 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- AMIR JAN AND 3 Other vs COMMISSIONER, QUETTA DIVISION CUM1987 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- AMIR HUSSAIN KHAN vs Haji HAKIM DIN and 2 others1987 CLC 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- AMIR HASSAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUX And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- AMIR And 3 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained their convictions and sentences under sections 302/34, 324/34, and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal attack arising from a dispute over sugar cane theft. The petitioners argued that the incident was a minor dispute lacking common intention to commit murder, claiming the injuries were simple and the fatal blow was not intended to kill. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, noting that the petitioners acted as aggressors who returned to the scene armed after an initial altercation. The Court held that the use of a Barchhi (spear) in a concerted attack on unarmed individuals demonstrated a clear intention to cause harm, and the fatal nature of the injury inflicted by the primary assailant, combined with the group's coordinated aggression, established common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the convictions or sentences and refused the leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the use of a dangerous weapon like a Barchhi in a concerted attack by a group establish common intention to cause death?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the accused claims the dispute was minor and the injury was not intended to be fatal?
- Does the act of returning to a scene armed after an initial altercation demonstrate an intention to commit an offense?
- AMIR ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1763 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI and 2 others vs JAN & COMPANY1987 CLC 442 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- AMIR AHMAD vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1987 PLC (C.S.) 584 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- AMIR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE and 3 others1987 MLD 1494 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- AMINA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1987 MLD 3052 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- AMIN HAYAT CORPORATION Ltd. vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI and 2 others1987 MLD 564 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- AMIL AHMAD vs Mrs. SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM1987 CLC 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- AMIIR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs BOARD OF REVENUE and another1987 CLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- AMER ABBAS vs CONVENOR, ADMISSION COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE and 2 others1987 MLD 2344 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs The MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB And Other1987 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding a dispute over two plots of land. The core legal question involved whether the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction to extend operations to Khasra numbers falling within municipal limits. The Supreme Court declined to examine the contention regarding jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands as he was in possession of both plots despite having purchased only one and failing to substantiate an oral agreement for the second plot. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing the principle that discretionary relief in constitutional and appellate jurisdiction may be denied to a party that lacks clean hands.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to a petitioner who does not approach the court with clean hands?
- Can consolidation authorities exercise jurisdiction over Khasra numbers falling within municipal limits when challenged by a party in possession of excess property?
- AMANULLAH QURESHI vs Shaikh UMAR DIN CHAWLA1987 MLD 2803 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN And Others vs Haji MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Amanullah Khan and others sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court vacating a temporary injunction that had been granted by the Senior Civil Judge and upheld by the District Judge in a civil dispute concerning land and an alleged public path. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in reversing concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding a prima facie case and balance of convenience for a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the High Court exceeding its revisional jurisdiction had force, and accordingly granted leave to appeal, alongside granting an ad interim stay till the hearing of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the High Court should be cautious in interfering with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts regarding the grant of temporary injunctions in revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts regarding a temporary injunction in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a private path fall within the ambit of a public path under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- AMANULLAH And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1991 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ULLAH KHAN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 400 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI Etc. vs B. O. R. Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI and others vs BOARD OF REVENUE and others1987 MLD 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- AMAN ULLAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2172 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2169 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal and miscellaneous petition filed by a convict seeking the concurrent running of sentences and the benefit of pre-sentence detention. The petitioner, previously sentenced to twenty-five years' rigorous imprisonment by a Special Military Court for misappropriation, was subsequently convicted by a Special Judge for a similar offence and sentenced to five years' imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the authority under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that a subsequent sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for pre-conviction detention. The Court held that it holds the power to order concurrent sentences under its appellate jurisdiction, aligning with the trial court's authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of pre-sentence detention. Consequently, the Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently, determined the petitioner had completed his term, and directed his immediate release.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the authority under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order that a subsequent sentence run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of pre-sentence detention under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when calculating the completion of a sentence?
- Can an appellate court exercise the powers of a trial court regarding the sentencing of an offender under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (SCHOOLS), PUNJAB, LAHORE And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 892 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN BUGHIE vs SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 218 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSS AIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 562 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- ALTAF CHAUDHARY and 2 others vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 1511 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
- ALTAF And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences for murder and other offences arising from a violent incident treated by the courts below as a free fight. The trial court and the High Court convicted the accused individually for their respective acts after finding that both sides sustained numerous injuries and suppressed parts of the incident. The core legal question was whether the dictum in Syed A.I Bepari v. Niberan Mollha was correctly applied and whether the death sentences of petitioners Altaf and Khizar Hayat were excessive given the circumstances and injuries sustained by the accused party. The Supreme Court held that while the cited case law was distinguishable, the death sentences were unwarranted given the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal solely to consider reducing the death sentence of Altaf and Khizar Hayat to imprisonment for life, while dismissing the petition in respect of all other petitioners. The key principle laid down is that the existence of injuries on the accused party in a free fight setting may warrant a lesser penalty than death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- Whether the death sentence for murder is warranted in a case involving a free fight where the accused party also sustained numerous injuries?
- Does the principle in Syed A.I Bepari v. Niberan Mollha apply uniformly to all free fight scenarios regardless of distinguishable facts?
- Can leave to appeal be granted selectively with regard to the question of sentence while dismissing the petition as to conviction?
- ALTAF AMIN vs Qazi MUHAMMAD NAEEM And 4 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs KARSAZ CORPORATION and others1987 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN1987 MLD 3313 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AWAN1987 CLC 724 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Messrs TAHIR TRADERS and others1987 MLD 147 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Messrs SAINJEE RESTAURANT AND MOTEL1987 MLD 622 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Messrs KASSAM CORPORATION and another1987 MLD 742 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-08Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MAQBOOL CO. LTD. and others1987 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
- ALLEY HADI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2503 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs The STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 102 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs GHULAM QASIM And Others1987 P Cr. L J 654 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB throughCollector, Vehari and others1987 MLD 2548 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA Alias MAHANNA And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, Allah Wasaya and Muhammad Sadiq, for the murder of Muhammad Younis under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering Allah Wasaya's sentence from death to life imprisonment. The incident stemmed from a dispute over a gift of rice brought to the petitioners' house by the complainant party for conciliatory purposes, which escalated into a fatal altercation where the deceased was stabbed. The High Court had given the benefit of the doubt regarding the precise attribution of the fatal blow due to minor discrepancies in statements. The Supreme Court examined whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was applicable given the nature of the injuries. The Court held that both petitioners acting in concert by coming down armed with weapons and attacking the deceased established a clear common intention, and declined to reappraise the evidence, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be inferred when co-accused jointly attack a victim with deadly weapons?
- Does a discrepancy in statements regarding the precise attribution of a fatal blow warrant the setting aside of a conviction for murder?
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where no misreading of evidence is shown?
- ALLAH RAKHA and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- ALLAH MUHAMMAD vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and 3 others1987 CLC 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs ZAHOOR alias ZAHOORA1987 MLD 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1785(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 5 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 625 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →