Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD HAROON and another vs F.Y. & BROTHERS and another1986 MLD 930 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAQ And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition was filed by two real brothers, Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Haq, against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, interested witnesses, and the sustainability of conviction where several co-accused were acquitted and recoveries were disbelieved. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a re-appraisal of the evidence was justified given that out of nine initially charged individuals seven were acquitted, weapon recoveries were discarded, and the eye-witnesses were close relatives of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted for a comprehensive re-appraisal of evidence when the prosecution relies on closely related witnesses, recoveries are disbelieved, and a vast majority of the co-accused have secured acquittals.
Questions settled- Whether re-appraisal of evidence is justified when multiple co-accused are acquitted and eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of related eye-witnesses when weapon recoveries are disbelieved?
- MUHAMMAD HANNA N vs S.M. AMMAN1986 MLD 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 403 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 329 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs Syed WALAYAT ALI BOKHARI, SETTLEMENT1986 CLC 2825 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 216 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs SHER AHMAD1986 MLD 884 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs SAMAR GUL And Other1986 SCMR 1179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 12th September 1985, which had previously determined that a fresh period of limitation accrued to the plaintiffs under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908. The petitioner contended that the documents relied upon to establish acknowledgment of liability were not signed in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Court examined the nature of the memos issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, noting that these documents, which led to mutations in the revenue record, effectively acknowledged the Government's status as a mortgagee. The Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner acted as an agent for the Central Government, rendering the memos binding acknowledgments in writing. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to raise the issue of the sufficiency of this evidence during the original appeal proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not re-argue the matter at the review stage, dismissing the petition for lack of substance.
Questions settled- Can a party re-argue the sufficiency of evidence in a review petition if the issue was not raised during the original appeal?
- Do memos issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner acknowledging government rights constitute an acknowledgment in writing under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner act as an agent for the Central Government regarding the administration of evacuee land rights?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUMTAZ AHMAD1986 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenged an ejectment order granted on the ground of personal bona fide need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether a landlord who has accepted 'Pagri' (goodwill) from a tenant is legally entitled to seek eviction under the provisions of the said Ordinance. The Court held that the acceptance of 'Pagri' constitutes a violation of Section 7 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which prohibits the demand or acceptance of premiums or fines in addition to rent. Consequently, such an agreement is unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, as it is forbidden by law. The Court established the principle that a landlord who accepts 'Pagri' creates a relationship distinct from the standard landlord-tenant relationship contemplated by the Ordinance, thereby disentitling the landlord from seeking relief, including eviction, under the Ordinance. The impugned eviction order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Can a landlord who has accepted 'Pagri' seek eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the acceptance of 'Pagri' by a landlord violate the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is an agreement involving 'Pagri' enforceable under the Contract Act, 1872?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs HABIBULLAH KHAN And Another1986 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property under the settlement laws. The respondent, a non-claimant displaced person in possession of the property since 1947, had submitted an N.C.H. Form for its transfer. However, the local settlement authorities, believing no form had been filed, transferred the property to the appellant through an earmarking scheme. The Settlement Commissioner later set aside the appellant's transfer, finding that the respondent had indeed submitted his form, making the property unavailable for earmarking. The High Court's Single Bench set aside this order because the Settlement Commissioner had not addressed the issue of limitation. However, the Division Bench restored the Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Settlement Commissioner failed to address the limitation issue, this defect was insignificant because the respondent's prior submission of the N.C.H. Form was a finding of fact. Consequently, the property was legally unavailable for earmarking, and the respondent, as an occupant who applied for transfer, could not be denied the property.
Questions settled- Whether a property can be legally transferred through an earmarking scheme if the occupant has already submitted an N.C.H. Form for its transfer?
- Can a finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner based on documentary evidence be interfered with by a Single Judge in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the failure of an appellate or revisional authority to address a question of limitation invalidate its order if the opposing party had no legal entitlement to the property in the first place?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs BAHAR And Other1986 SCMR 1513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected criminal petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified convictions and sentences in a murder and assault case. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/34, 307/34, and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two co-accused and altered the conviction of the primary respondents from section 302 to section 304-II, reducing their sentences. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased, challenged the alteration of conviction and the reduction of sentences for the primary respondent, arguing that the High Court's reasoning was flawed despite rejecting the defense's plea of self-defense. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the injuries inflicted, specifically a lacerated wound on the deceased's head, and found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the High Court's justification for leniency carried considerable force. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence of the primary respondent in the circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Was the High Court justified in altering the conviction from section 302 to section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after rejecting the defense's plea of self-defense?
- Does the nature of the injury inflicted on the deceased provide sufficient grounds to challenge a High Court's reduction of sentence in a murder conviction?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs ALLAH BACHYA AND 2 Other1986 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two consolidated appeals concerning pre-emption suits filed by the appellant regarding agricultural land. The trial court initially decreed the suits after deciding issues relating to court-fee, waiver, and superior right of pre-emption in favour of the plaintiff, while determining specific sale prices under issues 4 and 5. Upon appeal, the District Judge remanded the cases to the trial court for a fresh decision exclusively on issues 4 and 5. Subsequently, due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel on a date of hearing post-remand, the trial court dismissed the entire suits in default. Applications for restoration and subsequent appeals and revision petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the lower forums. The Supreme Court granted leave, held that the remand was limited solely to issues 4 and 5, and ruled that the trial court acted without competence in dismissing the entire suits in toto when findings on superior pre-emptive rights had already attained finality. The appeals were allowed and the suits were remanded to the trial court for a fresh determination strictly on issues 4 and 5.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss an entire suit in default when the case was remanded to it for a fresh decision on specific issues only?
- Whether the dismissal of a suit in toto is competent after findings on foundational issues such as superior right of pre-emption have already been finalized in favour of the plaintiff?
- What is the legal effect of a remand order that restricts the trial court's jurisdiction to specific issues?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2102 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF And Others vs Sub. SADIQ HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 1985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed two Civil Revisions arising from consolidated pre-emption suits. The core legal question was whether the failure of one set of pre-emptors to implead rival pre-emptors as respondents in their appeal rendered that appeal incompetent due to non-joinder, thereby necessitating the dismissal of the connected appeal on the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the technical omission to implead rival pre-emptors was inconsequential because no relief was sought against them, and all parties were effectively before the appellate court in the connected proceedings. The Court established that where rival parties are already present in connected appeals, the failure to formally implead them is a procedural defect that does not cause prejudice or render an appeal incompetent, especially when the appellate court has the power to add parties and no objection was raised by the affected parties themselves. Consequently, the technical plea regarding non-joinder did not justify granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead rival pre-emptors as respondents in an appeal render the appeal incompetent due to non-joinder?
- Can an appellate court overcome a technical omission of non-joinder by adding a party already present in connected proceedings?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to a consolidated suit where one appeal is allegedly incompetent due to a procedural defect?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF And Others vs Mst. SHAMA MAI1986 P Cr. L J 746 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose from proceedings under Article 6 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the petitioner challenged an interlocutory order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application to summon certain documents relating to a disputed marriage. A preliminary objection was raised by the Assistant Advocate-General regarding the maintainability of the revision in the High Court, contending that revisional jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 (as introduced by President's Order No. V of 1982). The core legal question was whether the High Court retains revisional jurisdiction over interlocutory orders passed in pending Hudood cases or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court. The Court held that the legislature intended to confer total revisional jurisdiction over Hudood cases exclusively upon the Federal Shariat Court, and that the term 'case decided' under Article 203-DD encompasses interlocutory orders and pending proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable before it, establishing that revisions against any orders in Hudood cases lie exclusively before the Federal Shariat Court.
Questions settled- Does the Lahore High Court retain revisional jurisdiction over cases tried under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confer exclusive revisional jurisdiction on the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood cases?
- Do the words 'case decided' in Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a trial?
- Can a revision against an interim order passed by a trial court in a Hudood case be maintained before the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD HANIF and others vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 2368 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF and others vs D.B.GHADIALY and another1986 MLD 913 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2621 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF And Another vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WITH POWERS1986 P Cr. L J 292 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF and 7 others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 4 others1986 MLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF and 4 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs The STATE1986 SCMR 37 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2576 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAN1F vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 120 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAIIIF vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH And ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 95 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in setting aside orders of the Settlement authorities on a writ petition, and whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner wrongly entertained a time-barred appeal without expressly condoning delay. The dispute involved a composite property in Kot Daska comprising a residential unit and shops, which were disposed of through an earmarking list under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Both parties participated in the earmarking and were transferred distinct portions based on the published list and application forms. Subsequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner altered entitlements based on pre-independence municipal numbers, a decision reversed in appeal and revision. The High Court, however, invoked its constitutional jurisdiction and restored the original transfer documents. The Supreme Court held that the property's identity was conclusively established by the official earmarking list, application forms, and transfer documents, and the Settlement authorities lacked jurisdiction to unsettle these entitlements by relying on divergent pre-independence municipal records. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, rendering the limitation question inconsequential.
Questions settled- Whether Settlement authorities have jurisdiction to alter property entitlements on the basis of pre-independence municipal records when properties were disposed of through an official earmarking list?
- Does the High Court correctly interfere in constitutional jurisdiction when Settlement authorities ignore material identifying documents such as earmarking lists and transfer forms?
- Whether the failure of an appellate authority to expressly condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 vitiates an order when the jurisdictional aspect is otherwise resolved?
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR KHAN vs Mst. BEGUM JAN And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 473 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR KHAN LASHARI And 4 Others vs THE STATE and another1986 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR KHAN And Others vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR And OTHER1986 CLC 2781 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GUL KAKAR vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1986 PLC (C. S.) 560 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GHAYYUR Alias GHORI And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2344 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FEROZE vs MIR ZAMAN1986 PLD Rev. 30 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FEROZE KHAN vs KHALIQUE DAD KHAN And 28 Other1986 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal against an order of the Additional District Judge. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning a delay of eight days in filing the petition for leave to appeal, where the appellant sought condonation on the ground of serious floods affecting travel from Sargodha to Lahore. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, particularly as the supporting affidavit was sworn on the day prior to filing without accounting for the interim gap, and the respondents successfully rebutted the flood allegations with documentary evidence and affidavits. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the delay of each day must be adequately explained when seeking condonation under the Limitation Act, and failure to do so results in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether the appellant is required to explain the delay of each day when seeking condonation of delay?
- Does an unsubstantiated plea of floods affecting travel constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under the Limitation Act?
- Can an appeal be dismissed as time-barred when the appellant fails to rebut documentary evidence disproving the grounds for delay?
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee shop in Jhelum, originally allotted to the appellant and subsequently rented to respondent No. 4. Both parties applied for the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question was whether the original allottee or the tenant in actual occupation is entitled to the transfer of the property under the scheme. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's occupation is derivative of the landlord's title and does not constitute occupation in his own right. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the allottee, rather than the tenant, is entitled to the transfer. The key principle laid down is that for the purposes of Settlement Scheme No. VII, occupation must be in one's own right; where a person is in actual occupation as a tenant, their possession is legally deemed to be the possession of the landlord, thereby disqualifying the tenant from claiming transfer rights against the allottee.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant in actual occupation of evacuee property is entitled to its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Does the occupation of a tenant constitute occupation in one's own right for the purpose of transferring evacuee property?
- Can a tenant in possession of evacuee property claim transfer rights against the original allottee under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- MUHAMMAD FAZAL vs THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN1986 PLC (C.S.) 1035 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAZAL KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT Through Secretary, Revenue And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 710 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FARYAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1853 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 52 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 755 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH1986 CLC 801 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN vs KARACHI CLUB And Other1986 SCMR 1330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Accountant at the Karachi Club, challenged a High Court judgment that set aside orders granting him back benefits. Initially, the petitioner was dismissed for misconduct, but a Labour Court ordered his reinstatement without back benefits, allowing for a fresh inquiry. Subsequently, the petitioner's post was abolished, rendering his appeal against the initial order infructuous. Despite the abolition of the post, the employer conducted an inquiry and dismissed him without back benefits. The petitioner then sought back benefits under Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which the Labour Court granted. The High Court, however, ruled that Section 51 only permits the recovery of money due under a settlement or award and does not authorize the determination of disputed claims. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to properly consider the scope of subsection (2) of Section 51 regarding the recovery of dues. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether Section 51 encompasses the determination of such claims.
Questions settled- Does Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 provide for the determination of disputed dues claimed against an employer?
- Is the recovery mechanism under Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 limited only to money already determined as due under a settlement or award?
- Can an employee claim back benefits under Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 following an inquiry conducted after the abolition of their post?
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ alias MAJAD and another vs THE STATE and others1986 MLD 2850 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ELIAS vs CHEMICAL COATING INDUSTRIES LTD.1986 PLC 125 · Labour Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD EHSAN And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 826 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs SHAHBAZ AHMAD and another1986 MLD 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF And OTHER1986 CLC 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MALIK DIN And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 427 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 2846 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 636 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN and others vs MUHAMMAD AMIN and others1986 MLD 576 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1970(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which rejected the petitioners' bail application. The petitioners, accused of an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had been detained in jail for more than two years without the hearing of their appeal commencing. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the delay in the commencement of their appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that despite the High Court's rejection of bail on the ground that the appeal had been fixed for hearing, the continued delay of several months without the hearing actually commencing entitled the petitioners to bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the release of the petitioners on bail subject to furnishing adequate sureties.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person detained in jail for more than two years without the hearing of their appeal commencing is entitled to bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be rejected solely because the appeal has been fixed for hearing, if the hearing does not actually commence within a reasonable time thereafter?
- MUHAMMAD DIN and 3 others vs O.S.D. GENERAL RECORD OFFICE, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and another1986 MLD 432 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN Alias MANHU And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 884 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DAWOOD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, WAPDA, QUETTA And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2108 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DAWOOD And 3 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction and life imprisonment for murder and causing injuries, which had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts had properly evaluated the evidence, particularly regarding the motive, the identity of the initial aggressor, and the overall balance of justice, given the history of altercations between the parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case required further examination. The Court observed that the lower courts failed to adequately consider the defence's plea that the complainant party were the initial aggressors, noting that the complainant party had initiated confrontations on multiple occasions. The Court determined that a just balance had not been maintained and that the petitioners had not received proper justice. The key principle laid down is that courts must ensure a balanced judicial assessment of conflicting evidence, especially when the complainant party initiates confrontations and the defence raises a plausible plea of aggression, necessitating deeper scrutiny to ensure that the accused receive a fair trial and that justice is truly served.
Questions settled- Does a failure to properly evaluate a defence plea of aggression warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Is it necessary for a court to consider the history of altercations between parties when determining the initial aggressor in a criminal case?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal if it finds that the lower courts failed to maintain a just balance in assessing evidence?
- MUHAMMAD BUX vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2738 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA And Another - vs CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION, MULTAN1986 PLC (C.S.) 769 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BIBI and others vs NAWAZ and others1988 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2657 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 418 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 435 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD JAFFAR1986 MLD 2303 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others vs SULTAN AHMAD and others1986 MLD 2759 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Others vs BASHIR AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition arising out of an urban settlement case concerning a disputed house. The core legal question is whether property already transferred to a respondent on a C.H. Form remains available for transfer to a fresh applicant who subsequently submitted an N.C.H. Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly concluded that nothing could be transferred to the petitioners because the property in question was not available at the relevant time. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a previously transferred property cannot be treated as available for subsequent fresh transfer applications under the settlement schemes.
Questions settled- Whether property already transferred on a C.H. Form remains available for transfer to a fresh applicant?
- Can an N.C.H. Form application lead to the transfer of property when the property is not available?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR And 5 Others vs HAYAT MUHAMMAD And Another1986 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the pre-emption of agricultural land. The petitioners, who purchased land in Gujranwala via a registered sale-deed, faced pre-emption suits filed by the respondents claiming superior rights as co-owners. The trial court initially dismissed the suits, finding that the petitioners had improved their status through Mutation No. 50 prior to the suits' institution. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, and the Lahore High Court upheld that reversal. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the validity and authenticity of Mutation No. 50. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court, which had noted significant discrepancies in the revenue records, including physical tampering with the register pages, inconsistent line colors, and testimony from a Girdawar Qanungo denying his signatures on the mutation. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly identified these evidentiary flaws, concluding that the mutation was unreliable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that courts may interfere when evidence is misread or when revenue records exhibit clear signs of fabrication.
Questions settled- Can a court disregard a mutation entry if the underlying revenue record shows signs of tampering or fabrication?
- Is the testimony of a revenue official denying their signature on a mutation sufficient to invalidate that mutation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere in cases where lower courts have misread the evidence regarding the authenticity of revenue documents?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Alias BILLA And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAQER vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 668 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAQAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BANARAS vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while answering the murder reference in the affirmative. The core legal questions involved whether ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence and the acquittal of a co-accused could sustain a capital conviction, and whether the failure of the prosecution to prove motive warranted the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness testimony remained credible despite minor discrepancies regarding distance, that the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt did not necessitate corroboration, and that the conviction was well-founded. However, the Court held that the failure to establish motive reacted on the question of quantum of sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but granted leave to appeal exclusively to examine the question of sentence.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the ground of benefit of doubt require corroboration of eyewitness testimony against the remaining accused?
- Can minor discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding distance and number of shots be attributed to a genuine mistake by witnesses?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive warrant the reduction of a capital sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether the High Court's dismissal of an appeal against a death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable on the provided evidence?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs The STATE1986 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption under sections 409, 420, and 465 read with 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to imprisonment and fines. His appeal before the High Court of Sind was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant and his counsel. A subsequent application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for restoration and disposal on merits was also dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether an admitted criminal appeal could be dismissed for non-prosecution. Holding that a criminal appeal once admitted must be decided on merits after perusing the record pursuant to section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that these provisions equally govern appeals filed under section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter for decision afresh on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal appeal once admitted to regular hearing by the High Court can be dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does the absence of the appellant or his pleader relieve the appellate court from the duty of perusing the record and deciding the appeal on merits under section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are the provisions of Chapter 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to appeals filed under section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 936 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE and others1986 P Cr. L J 2718 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs SAFDAR HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a rival pre-emptor's claim in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a prospective pre-emptor who signs a sale-deed as an attesting witness, with full knowledge of its contents, is estopped from subsequently asserting a right of pre-emption against a rival pre-emptor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision. The ratio of the judgment is that a pre-emptor who actively participates in a transaction by attesting a sale-deed, while fully aware of its contents, is deemed to have waived their right of pre-emption. The Court affirmed the principle that waiver of a pre-emption right is absolute and not conditional; once a pre-emptor has waived their right in respect of a sale, they are debarred from asserting it thereafter against anyone, including a rival pre-emptor who secures the benefit of the sale through legal proceedings, regardless of whether the waiving party acts as a plaintiff or defendant.
Questions settled- Does a prospective pre-emptor who signs a sale-deed as an attesting witness with knowledge of its contents waive their right of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emptor who has waived their right of pre-emption in respect of a sale assert that right against a rival pre-emptor?
- Is the waiver of a right of pre-emption absolute, or can it be reserved against specific individuals?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH And Another vs QADIR BAKHSH And Other1986 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this matter relates to agricultural land previously purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 via a mutation attested in December 1903, which allegedly was never incorporated into the subsequent revenue record or acted upon. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, or alternatively for possession, in February 1971. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was never in possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. This dismissal was upheld by the District Judge in appeal. However, the Peshawar High Court in revision accepted the petition and decreed the suit, holding that the suit was within time. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and limitation in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction without reversing the factual conclusions of the courts below. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the District Judge.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below without expressly reversing them?
- When does time begin to run for a suit for declaration and possession based on an unacted-upon mutation entry?
- Can a revisional court base its decision on assumptions to set aside concurrent findings of fact regarding possession?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Alias MAMDA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2362 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BACHAL AND OTHERS vs RASHID-UR-REHMAN KHAN1986 PLD Rev. 12 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-09-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZMAT vs DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, RAWALPINDI1986 PLC (C.S.) 992 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZEEM And 4 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1689 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 4 others1986 MLD 81 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM SHADIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 213 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYYUB vs The STATE1986 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a judgment of the High Court which had altered the appellant's death sentence to imprisonment for life for the murder of Muhammad Iqbal, centered on the reliability of the ocular evidence and the necessity of corroboration. The Supreme Court evaluated the testimony of the three alleged eye-witnesses, noting close familial relationships, omissions in the F.I.R., and unexplained delays in the production of the alleged crime weapon, a knife, which lacked human bloodstains. The Court held that the account furnished by the eye-witnesses was not reliable enough to be acted upon without independent corroboration, and that the purported recovery of the knife failed to provide such corroboration. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and ordered the appellant to be acquitted and released. The key principle laid down is that related and interested ocular testimony, when undermined by material discrepancies, delayed weapon recovery, and undisclosed previous enmity, cannot sustain a conviction without independent and reliable corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether ocular evidence from related and interested witnesses requires independent corroboration?
- Does the delayed production of a crime weapon to the investigating officer furnish valid corroboration for a murder conviction?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on uncorroborated eye-witness testimony when material contradictions exist?
- MUHAMMAD AYYAZ KHAN And 2 Other vs Messrs LIPTON (PAKISTAN) Ltd.1986 PLC 620 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 268 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL COUNCIL OF TEHSIL1986 CLC 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 877 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1541 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was sustainable based on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, given the existence of a blood feud, and whether alleged conflicts between the ocular version and medical evidence, alongside issues with weapon recoveries, warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the convictions were well-founded. The Court established that while enmity requires a rule of prudence regarding corroboration, it does not automatically invalidate the testimony of interested witnesses if their evidence is intrinsically reliable. Furthermore, minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, such as the absence of blunt weapon injuries, do not necessarily discredit the prosecution's case when the eyewitness accounts are otherwise consistent. Additionally, the recovery of weapons, even with disintegrated blood stains, provides valid corroboration where the accused demonstrated exclusive knowledge of the concealment. The Court affirmed the convictions while granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a blood feud between parties automatically invalidate the testimony of interested eyewitnesses?
- Can the recovery of weapons provide corroborative evidence if the blood stains on the weapons have disintegrated?
- Does a minor discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries necessarily discredit the prosecution's case?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences of life imprisonment?
- MUHAMMAD AYUB alias LAKHPATI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2912 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLOOB QURESHI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whether the defense version claiming a right of private defense regarding family honor was credible, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the encounter. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence consistent and the defense version unconvincing and fabricated. The Court rejected the plea of private defense, noting the lack of deep-rooted enmity and the trivial nature of the dispute regarding an electric connection. However, the Court held that because the incident was a chance encounter and the defense side sustained injuries, the ends of justice would be better served by commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The principle laid down is that while a conviction for murder is maintained based on consistent evidence, the absence of premeditation and the presence of minor injuries on the accused side may warrant the substitution of a death sentence with life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment in a murder case where the incident arose from a chance encounter?
- Is a defense plea of private defense regarding family honor credible when the evidence suggests a trivial dispute over an electric connection?
- Does the presence of injuries on the accused's side in a murder case necessitate a reduction in the sentence?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 720(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANG And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 182 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →